₦airaland Forum

Generalnomercy:
Wickedness of APC and buhari that you voted for.
APC is simply evil and a plaque to mankind.

Atiku wouldn't have done better if he were there today. That's a fact that I know.

donphilopus:
See those guys calling Buhari names because his State is the highest beneficiary. Y'all should be glad he's doing this. Unlike that Otuoke man who promised to only start developing his State and other neighbouring States during his second term.

Besides, no one can be more nepotistic than someone who chose to site a federal university in his village instead of his state capital.

Sorry to say this, but this is bullshitt.

We didn't vote Buhari so compare the two of them. Jonathan is now a past tense, we're talking of the present now. Stop bringing him to the present to compete with this cowheaded Buhari.

We voted Buhari because we expected him to be free and fair and be a better person that Jonathan never was. We didn't vote him to remain the way Jonathan was or be a bit of upgrade of Jonathan.

Please let's be objective. Buhari is very useless and doing things far worse than Jonathan ever did.

There's no hope for this country, unless everyone go back and answer to their names. Buhari government has shown that even more.

tintingz:
That doctor analogy is nonsensical.

God is all-knowing, doctors are not. God is all-powerful, doctors are not, God is the creator, doctors are not.

If a doctor possess such power why will a doctor create people that will sick when his job is to treat sick people? He would have save the stress from creating sick people except he's a psycho that like seeing sick people.

Secondly, we trust doctors because we see their effect in the society, not that we just trust them because of some authority, no, it's because of their consistent relevance. The trust isn't base on belief it's base on what we objectively experience.

So far I'm just seeing mental gymnastic and cognitive dissonance in this post, the mysterious wisdom of God answers the problem of Evil is special pleading and not valid in a philosophical argument.

In a philosophical argument there's inductive and deductive reasoning, please it's either you use this or keep that delusion away from logic.

Cc. Rilwayne001

Read the thread and read your reply to it. Isn't it obvious that you just deliberately don't even want the truth at all by feigning ignorance from the obvious while making empty rhetorics just so to win argument and pamper your delusional overbloated ego?

najib632:
Salamualaikum @Rilwayne001 ,this guy @tintinz is a hypocrite he will intentionally lie to win an argument. Leave him to his fate.

I'm actually not shocked because I know him too well. He even go about looking for argument where there's non just to win argument to satisfy his overbloated ego. I won't be surprised if he's egoistic in real life. And you know those who have their ego overbloated tends to go about looking for attention to pamper it. It's so ridiculous.

And thank you for your advice. I do appreciate.

tintingz:
Lol.
Using your example. You said YOU BELIEVE Buhari is nice, I said show some prove he's nice, you're not able to, then I'VE NO REASON "TO BELIEVE" Buhari is nice, this doesn't mean Buhari can't be nice but because you're not able to convince me, I don't have your belief he's nice, I don't believe he's nice. But if I say Buhari is not nice, then Buhari can't be nice because I'm giving a certain claim, i must have some proof that shows Buhari is not nice.
Note: You have a belief that God exist, you're not able to proof your belief that God exist, then I've no reason to accept your beliefs, so I lack your belief that God exist. This is different when someone said God doesn't exist, this mean God cannot exist.
How many times will I explain this?
Lol. You've assumed infinite regress to a conscious eing. Ok.
The flaws in your analogy is that, the sniper hasn't taken any effect, there's no connection with the sniper and the target here. The target is still alive working around, we have no reason to question who killed the target since nothing has happened to the target.
Now assume the sniper hit his target, the question can now go who cause the death of this effect(target), then we say it's the sniper after investigations, while the sniper said he got his order from someone above, and the person above said he got order from the person above and it goes on like that. Now that how cause and effect works in infinite regression. But in reality the sniper analogy isn't possible. Lol.

Understand what infinite regression of cause and effect is, there has to be an effect before making any infinite regression example.

Flawed.

Aliens, energy.

The thing is, uncaused creator, uncaused cause, intelligent designer are made up and not evidential, they are ideas made up in arguments.

Like I've said there is no evidence that support God existence, all this attributes are made up in some books and ideas.

Did God appear to you and said he's those attributes or you read it In some books?I've define this before.
Extraterrestrial entities outside our planets or universe with higher intelligence and abilities. Energy makes everything work, energy can't be created nor destroyed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
I just did.
So tell me, can't there be other entities or phenomena responsible for the existence of this universe?
Are you saying there isn't cause and effect?

You only assume the two choice is God and the universe because it's the theists that are trying so hard to prove their powerful God. Irony.

Where is it said the universe has a beginning? Is this fact? Where in the cosmology, quantum physics did it said the universe has a beginning?

If it's always existed then it's caused by nothing.

Lol, don't forget energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Empirical evidence please?

The carpenter exist in same space with the chair.

You're going back and forth.

We haven't even fully understand the brain.

Using similar example to yours, someone dropped dead where no one witnessed it and people gather to know what happened, will people suddenly claim a sniper killed the person? If yes, it's irrational but if No, investigations has to be carried out to know who killed the person if it's a sniper, a gang of boys or suicide or stray bullet. There are has to be evidence that connects to the real killer.

You don't base your argument from ignorance or fill the gaps with fallacies.

So, the question is how will this prove your God, what are the practical connection does the brain proves your God exist.back again.

Explain.

Arrogance works hand in hand with dishonesty, that's what you've shown here. Your dishonesty reeks in this reply that I'm so sure if any other atheist come up on this thread to read your rebuttal to my last post before this, he will definitely marvel at your dishonesty too. And I already said that'll be my last time of going round in circle with you. I'm sure I've tried my best and definitely have ignited your conscience in seeing the truth. Somehow it'll continue to play on you how you've, out the need to wallow in your dishonesty, developed a lot of mastery In the art of lying and feigning ignorance to the truth.

Have a nice day bro.

Okay I just learn a lesson out of this. And it is that whenever anyone you don't know tells you to help then withdraw money from the ATM, it is always better to decline such task as in the event this guy had given someone the ATM to withdraw the #120k, there is high tendency the person would be in the police station in place of this evil man now.

She gave birth to her first child when she was only 14years old. Wow.

tintingz:
You're still putting words in my mouth. This is strawman argument. After I explained to you about my position you still result to straws.

You like going in circle and turning a blind eye on the bone of contention. I didn't put words in your mouth, rather from inference, you made visible your position. You can't say you believe Buhari is likely to be nice, and at the same time say with CERTAINTY that everyone from northern part of Nigeria isn't nice. Although you obviously didn't say Buhari isn't nice, but you totally inferred it with certainty. That's what you've shown so far on your position of God not existing at all with relation to your position of infinite regression.

If you still don't understand, then that's your problem. I'm done with this circular argument. It's a total waste of time.

1. There is nothing irrational about infinite regression.

Let me make this further simple for you to understand, and this definitely will be my final attempt.

Imagine that a sniper, who has acquired his designated target, radios through to HQ to get permission to shoot. HQ, however, tells the sniper to hold on while they seek permission from someone higher-up. Subsequently, the person higher-up seeks permission from the guy evn higher up, and so on and so on. If this keeps going on forever, will the sniper ever get to shoot the target? Of course not! He will keep on waiting while someone else is waiting for a person higher up to give the order. There has to be a place or person from where the command is issued; a place where there is no one higher. Thus, this example illustrates the rational flaw in the idea of an infinite regress of causes. When we apply this to the universe we have to posit that it must have had an uncreated creator. The universe, which is a created thing, could not be created by another created thing, ad infinitum. IF THAT WERE THE CASE THIS UNIVERSE WOULD NOT EXIST, definitely because the creator that created it would have needed permission from higher entity that would have needed permission from higher entities ad infinitum, hence it would never exist. Since it exists, we can dismiss the idea of an infinite regress of causes as an irrational proposition.

Do you understand me now

2. If we're to use "something must come from something" of course infinite regression will come in.
3. Again for the last time and stop grasping at straws, God doesn't exist means GOD CANNOT EXIST. I didn't say God cannot exist, I said I've not seen any reason to believe God exist not that a God cannot exist. If there is any being that's uncaused then you're saying something can come from nothing. Can't you see your contradictions and bias? This is a pleading fallacy.

Please refer to my posts above, I'm tired of repeating myself.

Secondly, why must a first cause be a God? You only ascribe first cause to be God because you read it from a book not that you practically have evidence that the first cause is a God.

You may chose to call him the uncreated creator. Uncaused cause. Intelligent designer. You're still referring to God. Is there any other being that all fits into this definition?

Understand the argument. You haven't shown any prove that whatever the first cause is must be a God. Did the first cause appear to you personally and said he's a God with some characters? I can as well claim the first cause/s are aliens, can you disprove that?

Define Aliens.

I can say the first cause is energy whence the universe, can you disprove that?

You need to define energy, objectively.

You're the one jumping to conclusion the first cause must be a God while I've not seen any prove for this, I'm just asking why must it be a God, why not other entity or phenomena?

Maybe we'll see this more when you define your other entities and phenomenon.

Argument from ignorance.
You said something must come from something, right? Meaning everything must have a cause no matter what.
Now tell me how this won't result to infinite regressionYou're in a dilemma here. It's either something can come from nothing therefore an uncaused cause or entity, which is irrational according to you. Or something must come from something therefore infinite regression and God is caused.
You've to choose one mister. Yes
Lol. See your pleading fallacy again.
Everything depend on something then suddenly there's a first cause that's not dependent on anything. How did you switch from everything depend on something then there's something that's not dependent on something.
You established that something must depend on something, God is something then it must depend on something.The only way this can support your argument is saying something can come from nothing, do you agree?

The law of cause and effect only leads to infinite regression, and as I've shown up there, infinite regression is absurd by logic, hence it's only logical that something must have always existed. Now there are two obvious choices: God or the universe. Since the universe has a beginning and hence and dependent, it cannot have always existed. Therefore, something that always existed must be God.

If anything at all exists, there must be something preceding it that always existed. How did this eternally existing reality come to be? The answer is that it never came to be. It always existed. Take your pick: God or universe? Something always existed.

I pick God. He created the universe and thus not bound by its laws; He is, by definition, an uncreated Being, and He never came into existence. Something that never began cannot be created.

And lastly, if something isn't bound to our universe laws, then it's bound to the laws in space where it exist in.

In the process of designing and creating the chair, the carpenter does not become the chair, does he? He is distinct from the chair. This applies to the uncreated creator as well. He created the universe and therefore is distinct from what He created. Here, you only wish for the some similar law that's guiding the universe to be established outside of it, this is just your figment of imagination.

How does this prove God? This may prove a first cause but not necessary a God talkless of an Arabian deity. No, we all know the universe isn't all intelligently designed, this has been debunked by cosmologist.

Wow

Before we even go to the design of the universe, what's your position of the design of mankind, take the human brain into consideration, not intelligent at all!?

Secondly, we don't even know if the universe is infinite or has a beginning.

What do you mean 'f the universe is infinite? And are you still asking whether the universe has a beginning or not? Are you so ignorant.?

Another strawman. Is this what I said?
Go back and read it again. I've said earlier we haven't fully understand the brain. Humans are way intelligent because we have big brains than animals, do ants have self-awareness?

We're not talking about how the brain is big or not.. We're talking about what made it function. Did it just start functioning on it's own? What makes it animate and the chair inanimate.

You haven't demonstrated how consciousness is immaterial, everything you're saying still falls back to the brain which is material. If we take out your brain and damage it, you're dead.

What makes the brain function, that's the question I'm asking.

Yes, tell me how?Tell me how you know there is outside the universe, I'm all ears.

Is the universe an independent or a dependent entity? What's your position? I'm sure you won't be too ignorant to tell me you don't know.

Lol. You're using TV signals for the brain.
TV has no brain nor storage, I hope you know that? It has to get a signal to pick channels. This is not how the human brain works. You should have used something like a computer system which has memory and can recognize documents and even virus.

What makes the brain function, that's the question.

A live brain is non-conscious? Ok. ;DWhat then is dead brain? Oh my goodness.

Simply placing a human brain beside a chair, then tell what makes them different? Can the function on their own volition? They are both matter, but one works in a miraculous way, how so?

So far, consciousness is material. Where did I said such?So you don't know what a matrix is?Did you watch the movie Matrix?Ok, Matrix in this context means, the world we're living is like a dream, the real reality is out there when we wake meaning when we die. We're probably put in this dream-reality by Aliens to test run us.

You can't provide a rational argument to buttress all these. I've provided one for God. I dare you to do so for Aliens and Matrix, objectively.

This is some people belief on reality. n this case, if there is something beyond our reality, matrix is another hypothesis.

Ok

Like God is all good but evil exist blah blah blah.It's actually problem of Evil.

This requires your understanding of the Islamic religion. You can check my Riduane account to see a topic I created to address the problem of evil. Drop your comment.

Another argument from ignorance.I know my brain evolve, that's what I know. Ok, stop. Chairs are non-living things. The brain is a living thing which receive information through our senses.

Good. How did it receive information? What's that thing that makes it receive information?

Nope, false.
You only know about God and a particular God and it mythology because your parents taught you. You read about your God in a book not that you're born with it.

How come stone aged people worshipped one God or the other? Did they read it in a book too? An if their parents taught them, where did their parents got to know about the idea of God?

Your argument is becoming ridiculous. No, I don't believe in Aliens and science hasn't discover any aliens.
It's just an hypothesis just like God hypothesis.

Ok

I'm all ears. How can't there be alien or aliens?
How can there be one God and which God is it?

This definitely will require a thread

Ok, quick question, can something that think, move exist without time and in a space?

Time and space is limited to the universe, and only God is outside of it. So your question isn't even clear. Perhaps you rephrase.

Do they say the big bang is the origin of the universe
The big bang is said to be the earliest expansion of the universe not the origin.

If something expand, what does it tell you?

Do you know about the initial singularity/gravitational singularity?
From someone who believes in ridiculous things.
It's a theory which try to explain how our universe expanded.

What does science say about the origin of the universe?
Did science say it doesn't know?

No, tell me why you think our universe was created by an intelligent design, a perfect God?

Isn't it obvious?

Good news

abduleez1:
Can I still download on Opera mini while using their free data?

It's not downloading

We were happy when stupid things about our yeyebrities stopped making FP, but I'm starting to see a Mod pushing them to FP again. We thought sanity was coming back to nairaland, but it's starting to appear otherwise.

Seun osewa, do something!

laydoh:
It seems so. Those idiots, like their airtelTV ain't useless.

Yeah. You can't use it on other apps to except Opera mini and the app.

laydoh:
Last night.

But it appears one can't use out of the 3gb for normal download right?

laydoh:
Free data.

When did you download the Airtel TV and you were given 3GB?

ThatKING:
wow you promoted APC back then. How has that work out for you? This life Sha

There would not be much difference with PDP too. They're all the same thing.

Evil beckons

tintingz:
Unicorns never existed, it's base on fairytales.

Ikr

There can be a first cause or not, it's doesn't necessary has to be a God. No one knows what a first cause could be.

Now, we're getting there. If only you'll not be dishonest again by going against your words here. Prior until now, you've been spinning out your irrational argument of infinite regression, and if you're to hold the idea of infinite regression to the extent you're are supposedly certain about it, then it only means you're saying you're certain God doesn't exist. Thankfully, I made it obvious to you that your argument is irrational and it's tantamount to equating God to the idea of Unicorn, which never existed at all.

Now my reply to your "THERE CAN BE A FIRST CAUSE OR NOT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE GOD." I think you're mistaken about the idea of God, which if you've taken cognizance of my previous post, you'll notice I define him to be the UNCAUSED CAUSE. If I define God to be the uncaused cause, hence he's the FIRST CAUSE, then how do you ask again that it doesn't have to be God?

You see how you were sounding logical and agreeing with my argument until your dirty mind just don't want to hear the word God? lol wetin God do you?

What evidence of God?
No, it means I've no reason to believe your God exist since it lack evidence. Not that God cannot exist, I've no reason to believe one exist so i lack the belief.

The very reason that there some things above what science can understand isn't enough reason?

You're putting words in my mouth. Stop it. Lanre also do same.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. Logical deduction from your argument is what gives and inferred standing point on your position of whether God exist or not. If you keep yapping about an imaginary infinite regression, then it's tantamount to saying it's not possible for a first cause to exist. Hence God cannot exist.

A first cause can exist, no one knows and if it does exist we doesn't know what it's! This is where I'm agnostic.

You don't use CAN in this scenario, there must always be a certain to a logical reasoning. Everything that exists in this universe depends one way or the other on another thing, do you angry with this? You're one way or the other dependent on some factors to exist. Hence if everything In the universe is dependent, then the universe is also dependent on something external to it, which definitely is something that brought it into existent, hence the first cause. This first cause isn't bounded by the universal law, hence you can't expect science to apply universal law on it.

Again, I said I've no reason to believe God exist until it's proven, not God doesn't exist.

The proves is all around, you're just dishonest and not ready to accept it. From the very intelligent design to you and your universe dependency, everything is clear to you, but you choose to between arrogant and not see.

These are two different positions. Saying God doesn't exist mean God cannot exist, this is a gnostic Atheists position.
Saying you have no reason to believe God exist means you haven't been convinced with evidence God exist not that God cannot exist, you just lack the belief one exist.

Saying there's no possibility of a first cause is tantamount to saying it is impossible for a God to exist. Which is your very position. This is very simple first all to see. Lol

Science have not fully understand the brain yet, what we know now Is the brain is responsible for our consciousness, this can be demonstrated objectively. Consciousness being immaterial has no evidence, it can't be demonstrated unless if you can do that. I'm all here

Try to understand this, the brain is a material thing. It can be seen feel and touched. Now, the brain couldn't have done the work it's doing just like that without some chemical reactions in it. These chemical reactions brought about one to be self aware of oneself and one's environment. Take note that it would have been easier to understand if you're conscious of what I'm conscious of, but of course consciousness is subjective contrary to what you're trying to say up here, which only shows you don't know much about consciousness. You haven't explain how the brain, a 1300 grams or so of nerve cells conjures up the seamless sensations, thoughts, memories and emotions that occupy every waking moments. That's my question oh, not the rubbish you're saying up here.

How did you assume there is a point you can't reduce something to? How did you assume there's a end? If something can be reduce to the point it can't be reduced doesn't that mean something can come from nothing? Doesn't that also mean cause and effect doesn't apply to all?

Cause and effect is a universal law, outside of time and space, it is not applicable. Do you want to argue tis too?

I don't even understand the nonsense you said here.

The TV is a matter. For it to show SS3, it needs signal which may not be physical. This is likeable to the idea of the brain and consciousness. Understand?

The Brain receive information and we act on the information, if i hit you on your head you can go unconscious because your consciousness is from the brain.

How can the brain, a non conscious matter, receive an information in the first place?

How about a CHAIR? Its a non conscious matter too Why is it not receiving information like the brain? Or do you believe it receive information?

You haven't given any practical reason consciousness is immaterial.

Is it material?

My point is, it does not necessary proves God, it just proves there's something beyond materialism not necessary God.

If you agree something is beyond materialism, how can you certain that that its not necessarily God?

I hope you know what post hoc fallacy is.
I didn't say it cannot be God, I said it's not necessary proves God, it can be matrix or another dimension we have no knowledge of. These are hypothesis people made up of reality.

You have to define what you mean by matrix, then we weigh it up with the definition of God to see whether the attribution is aligned or not. The major reason why I asked you to define what you understand by alien the other time.

There are many arguments about God. Empirical evidence should prove God you're talking about.
When it comes to disproving your God in the book there are various argument like argument of evil, omnipotent argument, creation argument etc.

What do you mean argument of evil?

What can convince me your God exist is empirical evidence like miracles I mentioned earlier.

Is the composition or work of your brain not miraculous enough? Could your brain have happened by chance and nothing whatsoever behind it?

If consciousness comes from the brain isn't that material? Is the brain not material?

The materiality of the brain only shows it's no different from a chair. How come the brain now do the work it's doing and a chair can't do same? That's the logic you're lacking.

The definition of your God is it evidential or something y'all read from a book?

The idea of God is innate in our mind right from we were born. You don't even need any book to define him. Unlike your aliens as define by your science below. Same science with no scientific prove for it. Smh

Well, Aliens are extraterrestrial entities outside our planets or universe, they are said to possess powerful abilities.

And do you believe this? Has science proven this?

Since no ones knows if there is outside universe or there's not, aliens can be the cause of this universe, aliens can be the cause of our reality, this universe can be a project to aliens. This is a claim just like God claim. They both have no evidence.

There can't be aliens, there can only be one God. If you need some schooling on this, then be my guest.

No one knows what transcend OUR TIME and OUR UNIVERSE, if there is anything of such, it must be dependent on another TIME and SPACE.

If you're applying the same time and space which is a universal law to outside the universe again, then I can only shake my head for your ignorance. Smh. How can you assume time and space outside of time and space again? Ah gosh!

I don't know, why not tell me. 1. I don't know if the universe has it origin.

Oh hahahaha. You have to run away from science because you don't want to be caught off guard. You're one funny dude. The big bang theory according to science was trying to explain the origin of the universe from matter. How can you now say now say you don't know if it has origin or not?

I swear you don't know anything. You're just an empty atheist. Probably you turn atheist out of grievance to God or something. Guy, go and read books and stop parading yourself as atheist. At least you have to know things before parading yourself as one.

What's your position on BIG BANG.

2. Why must it be created?

Please refer to my post. I have to establish your thoughts about the universe before I address your other questions on this thread. If not, your trying to stand on this fence will not safe your silly ass this time, rather only expose you for the empty unintelligent atheist that you're. Lol

Anas09

Anas09:
Proof your points by pulling up threads were you trashed me. Go on.

I'm not as childish as you're to be looking for who I trashed or not. All I'm saying his, we've contributed to the burial of Christianity on this section, and you were nowhere to save it. A little peep on my threads in this section is enough to show you that. That of my https://www.nairaland.com/truthman2013 moniker was even more. Lol.

Gone are those days.

Anas09, empiree

Anas09:
Hahahahahaahaha. Empiree internet never forgets.
We chased most of you out of Nairaland, how is that for chest beating?

God has saved you becos I am no longer that warrior.

We all know it's the contrary. Haha.

lanrexlan:
So what's the share?

Maybe 98.8 : 1.2

This is some silly excuse.
God exist by necessity, isn't that deterministic: everything must be in cause and effect?
- Why not Aliens exist by necessity?
- How did you arrive that the uncaused cause must be a God?
- How did you arrive that this God is uncaused? Why not the previous entity? Or the previous entity? Or the previous entity? Why not the universe being uncaused?
Aren't you giving excuse that SOMETHING can come or exist from NOTHING?

I'll come back to this later.

tintingz:
Unicorns never existed.

Did you have evidence for unicorn and you were not provided with it, and then concluded that it never exist? Or you just simply and certainly know that it never existed?

[quote God doesn't exist is a certain word. One with this position should have evidence for this.[/quote]Good. In order words, you're not certain whether God exists or not?
If this is your position, why argue blatantly against the evidences of God so far?

I lack belief in God or Gods existence means lacking "the belief in God existence". Something like you believe God exist, I told you to prove it, you aren't able to provide sufficient evidence God exist, so I lack your beliefs in God existence.

Is this not tantamount to an admission that God does not exist unless proven otherwise?

God does not exist and lack in beliefs God exist are two different things.

No. They are the same thing, you're just confusing yourself more. Trying to stay in a position that'd be fallacious while talking fallacy is what you're doing here. You have to admit that, after searching for evidence and non was supposedly provided, it is safe for you to ultimately say God does not exist. For if you're to admit that God exist after been shown a sufficient prove, your position will still look foolish because you seem to be very sure that there can never be a first cause, and we must certainly have a first cause to establish the existence of God.

Think well about this before replying me abeg^^

Richard Dawkins scale analyzed this. We all know evidence has to do with facts which can be objectively confirm to be true.

Is the evidence for consciousness objective? Take note that the evidence that I'm conscious is solely subjective to me, and yours subjective to you. How then can you conclude that evidence is objective? How about evidence of the immaterial part of that you and I are consciousness of, is there any established argument against it? Is the evidence for the origin of earth big bang objective? Is the evidence for Theory of evolution objective?

No, tell me more.

To make is easy for you to understand, Imagine a table. A table is made of wood. Wood is composed of cellulose fibres and lignin, which can then be reduced to monosaccharides which are compounds of the elements CARBON, HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN. We can further reduce down to subatomic particles such as electrons and protons and then quarks.

Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium.

What I'm trying to say in essence is that, matter is composed of a lot of things. Without the combination of all these things matter can't be. Also it establish that everything called matter is dependent on many different particles to be whole. However, we hit a point where we reach an end to materiality. This is known as “substance”. Because substance is that which is not dependent on anything else.

No matter what you reduce down — tables, trees, people, planets, stars — you will find a substance that can no longer be reduced and nor is it dependent on anything else.

Understand?

Jittery? Lol, you must be Prof Xavier. Lol, did you listen to your teacher when they taught you the senses?
Did you really ask how the brain started bringing pictures? Like seriously? How did you know you're using a phone to type? The brain is our consciousness, if anything happens to the brain affect you.

You're saying rubbish, and you obviously know nada!

The brain is a material thing. It's can be seen and touched. But what triggered it to do the work it's doing is what consciousness.

Imagine you having a TV in your room. The TV is material thing, obviously, but how can the TV show supersport3? Do you just say it's because the TV is meant to show whatever that's why supersport 3 just popped up just like that?

Please think well before replying oh.. And let's see who didn't pay attention to their teacher in school.

It will only prove there's something beyond our materialism not God.

Goofing as usual. You said "not" God, how can you be so sure it's not God if you're really giving in for objectivity?

It can be a matrix, it can be another dimension, it can be anything(many dots) but doesn't connect to any God. You will have to provide proof to connect the dots with God.

How can you say it "can be a matrix" But cannot say ''it can be God"? You see it's obvious you know the possibility of the truth, but you're too arrogant to even abhor the idea of God in your mind. That's too bad.

Just like acclaimed supernatural events, it doesn't necessarily prove God, it only shows there's something we don't understand,

You appears to know what proves God, necessarily and what doesn't prove God necessarily. Could you please state them?

it can supernatural or natural. Consciousness comes from the brain, that's what we know.

I'm not denying consciousness doesn't come from the brain, the question is, is this consciousness material?

If the TV is showing supersport3, do you just assume it's what it's meant for that's why it's showing it rather than admit some immaterial signals are in the TV?

Think hard brother.

Or why can't consciousness come from Aliens, why must it be God?

What is aliens? That's the question you need to understand. We have defined God to be the uncaused cause. Unmoved mover. We have defined him to be totally independent and everything that exists is dependent on him. We have defined him to transcend time and the universe. I ask again, what do you define aliens to be, because you're resorting to rubbish imagination as usual

Science being limited doesn't mean it's stuck, it's only lack omniscient(absolutism), science evolve with time.

There are some position for which science can't come close to, if it does it would invalidate what the it's source. Can science establish what transcends time and the universe? Of course not. Science is limited to time an the physical and observable things within the universe.

Has anyone prove immaterialism? If you have prove of immaterialism show me and what methods they use.As long as evidences are presented, I will never jump into fallacious conclusion: therefore it's this. Your conclusions can be err, why not leave the gap as it's till we know what should be there. I can tell you many phenomena that are associated with gods which are false today because we know better now.

This doesn't deny the fact that the universe has its origin. What is the origin?

Logically it's not possible. The logical arguments is "something must come from something".

Good.

It's logical because nothing has no property which cannot beget something. Secondly it's logical because we have not experience nothing, what logic do we have to make up from nothing?is that you have problem with "I don't think" or what? Nothing has "no property" to be called something.

Answer this,

1. Where did God came from?
2. How did God came into being?
3. From what did God create everything from?

Let's see your response.

Before I attempt your questions, we need to establish the origin of the universe. Do you believe the universe has its origin, hence created?

Empiree:
rilwayne001, this thread

I tell you.

I'm just coming out of almost 2 months ban

Yesterday, Boko Haram burnt 30 travellers in Maiduguri including 2 students of University of Maiduguri. They took in captive lots of women and children (figures still unknown). In the past weeks, even before yesterday, they've been wrecking all sorts of horrendous havoc up North. But you see today, government Released 1400 supposedly repentant BHs. Is there still a country?? Cursed the day Lord Lugard conjoined us in this cesspit!�Cursed the day I ignorantly pressed my thumb for Buhari. Justice is sought!!

This country is fuckeed up!

gingercrazy:
I like your Theory, it's possible it goes in that direction. Any idea when the spin off will start rolling out?

June

The major ish with most guys and ladies of nowadays is that they don't have much fixation with their lives. When Buhari said most Nigerian youths are lazy, he was absolutely right. We are virtually lazy as mhfckers. We spend much of our time on the internet; Instagram, Facebook, Twitter etc. No creativity or innovation, no thinking out of box whatsoever except to take pictures and upload on all these mediums. Go to school, they'll not go, they follow Yahoo boys around, and the guys too will engage in internet fraud just to satiate these oloshos. They spend much time in club than in class. And even when in class they prefer to check pictures on IG than to focus on the lecturer. At the end, they have nothing to show for their years in school. Pray tell, which organization would take half baked graduate in their manpower planning? Unless they want to wind up abruptly.

This particular one that took her life definitely have nothing to show for all her years on earth, for if she did, the need to take your life because of a particular person would not have sprung up. Career? No. Ambition? Clueless. What do you want to do in life? They will tell you "I just want to marry a rich dude and travel out of the country. Seriously? Is that how it works? Nah.. Of course not.

We all have to have a goal. Realistic goal that will serve as our prime mover in life. This one's goal is her boyfriend, and when the boyfriend is gone, she resulted to absurdism i.e the purposelessness and uselessness of existence. Oh yeah! Irrationals.

Brain is so scarce these days. Economists should come up on on theory to maximize the little we have. Amen.

This is from a friend in the same institution