₦airaland Forum

CatfishBilly:
The age of the sun and the earth is public knowledge, go and find those out yourself.

Life evolved on Earth because earth has the right composition and constituents to make that possible, that doesn't preclude the fact that there could be other forms of life in other planets, so your fine tuning argument doesn't fly.
I'm done replying your red herring.
The argument is origin of the universe. If you want to discuss something else, open another thread.

Still fantasy! The earth had just the right composition? WHY? why was this so? Why Was This composition JUST RIGHT?

again you make another fantasy Laden comment by saying THERE COULD BE OTHER LIFE FORMS ON OTHER PLANETS and used this assumption or fantasy to arrive at the conclusion that my fine tuning theory does not fly. You used the word COULD which is an assumption yet you drew a conclusion from it.

Johnydon22, the comment by catfishbilly proves my point.

Fantasy is science fiction and not fact. Perhaps they will listen to you when you tell them.

johnydon22:
Now it is obvious you have not being reading any of my posts here before commenting on them. Jesus Christ!!!

Please refer to all my posts on this thread, read them again and also to the discussion with KingEbukasBlog who I am willing to hope might correct your wrong representations of my argument.

Please I advice you read posts and understand them before hoping to jump to reply, such excitements are unneeded.

This has being my argument from the very first time the argument for the age of the universe was raised, maybe if you paid keen attention (not just wanting to reply) you would have noticed.

This is exactly why I ignore your posts, its always consonant in terms of reconciliation with the posts you hope to reply.

You are loosing track of the number of conflating positions you have taken. Even Ermacc pointed the same thing out to you.

johnydon22:
You reply posts without even knowing the underlying point it addresses, you are just trying to argue.

Who was Erwin Schrodinger? An atheist

Why did he theorise the multiverse? He wanted something to replace God and disprove the origin of the Universe from an eternal being.

Why do you enjoy dodging things that put you in a quagmire? Was the multiverse theory not a produce of fantasy? Is fantasy scientific fact or fiction?

This same science fiction of the multiverse theory was used by Jackfizzle to argue against God as if it was a scientific fact which he first claimed to hold dear.

Do you see why you should not dodge it? Correct your fellow atheists and appeal to them to stop dwelling on fiction when presenting arguments. It is laughable!

johnydon22:
So you agree with me that the Big bang theory is correct?




Systems do not have to be conscious to be self sustaining, I am pretty sure stars aren't conscious.



These profound and lovely images are, I like to imagine, a kind of premonition of modern astronomical ideas.* Very likely, the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang, but it is by no means clear that it will continue to expand forever. The expansion may gradually slow, stop and reverse itself. If there is less than a certain critical amount of matter in the universe, the gravitation of the receding galaxies will be insufficient to stop the expansion, and the universe will run away forever. But if there is more matter than we can see - hidden away in black holes, say, or in hot but invisible gas between the galaxies - then the universe will hold together gravitationally and partake of a very Indian succession of cycles, expansion followed by contraction, universe upon universe, Cosmos without end. If we live in such an oscillating universe, then the Big Bang is not the creation of the Cosmos but merely the end of the previous cycle, the destruction of the last incarnation of the Cosmos.

The cosmos By Carl Sagan

I wonder how the point eludes everyone here, its actually very simple.

Our cosmology is yet to determine the actually state of the universe, we cannot conclusively state whether it is eternal or not - these are all possible results of the big bang cosmological mode.

But you have been arguing with certainty all along. Why this last comment now?

felixomor:
If it cant be tested,
Then stop assuming.

It's not assumption Mr Felix it's FANTASY.

CatfishBilly:
So, the earth, sun and stars all formed immediately the big bang happened, abi? Interesting!

The components of the "previous universe" can't be tested because carbon dating wasn't done, the age of the present observable universe was calculated from its rate of expansion, how is that difficult to understand?

So when did they form? And why did they Individually DECIDE to form in such a manner as would give us just the right distance from each other and the right gravitational pull plus who determined their sizes which influence the strength of their gravitational pull?

How was it that the Sun DECIDED to set itself at just the right position needed for sustaining life here on earth?

I wish to be educated.

johnydon22:
I am quite certain that the possibilities of other galaxies was once a subject of science fiction.

Rev fr geodano Bruno was burnt at the stake for daring to assume there may be countless number of worlds some inhabited.

The Multiverse theory is just as much inclusion of external influence as God, no less observationally feasible as God.

So as I have maintained the lesson is clear: these are of no relevance within our space/time (universe)

Erwin Schrodinger originated the multiverse theory and guess what he was and why he theorised it.

hopefulLandlord:
Our British surgeon is too "intelligent" to notice John is ignoring her posts, "intelligence" does have its downside

oh and by the way John is in a fix. So he chooses to ignore those things that would further put him in a fix. When reality collides with Atheistic fantasy . You know the rest.

hopefulLandlord:
Our British surgeon is too "intelligent" to notice John is ignoring her posts, "intelligence" does have its downside

You are clearly extremely myopic not to see that everyone is ignoring yours. Now it's time to throw in distracting memes just to be noticed.

johnydon22:
But still something that exists isn't it?

God does not simply exist! God is the cause of existence. In a nutshell, GOD IS!

God is the one who was before existence began as we know it.

We talk about existence from the human materialistic nature but the intangibility of the spiritual does not talk about existence as we know it. It's like trying to say you know the origin of the wind.

You could say the wind is caused by the sun heating the earth and causing air to rise and then the earth's rotation causing the wind to move anticlockwise or Coriolis effect but can there be wind without air?

Air is made up of various gases but without the cause of these gases can we have air? If you keep following this backwards you would surely know that PURPOSE was behind all things.

Have you bothered to find out what the earth would be like if there was absolutely no wind? I suggest you look into this and then tell me about your no intelligence behind creation theory.

KingEbukasBlog:


Many atheists don't even know the history of atheism . Atheists then were not even taken seriously because there claims were suffused with ignorance . The ancient Charvaka atheist materialist school claimed that the universe is made up water , earth , fire and air . I think they were the ones that first brought up the idea of an eternal universe because they claimed that the universe not God is eternal and an eternal universe precludes God's existence .

Thank God modern science has rubbished those claims with surfeit evidence that the universe indeed had a beginning .

Atheism began as a school of speculative thinking with a lot of fantasy and till date has not deviated from its origin.

I read Jackfizzle make a comment directed at me somewhere that he was arguing based on SCIENCE FICTION and not Science. It got me tied up in knots with laughter.

KingEbukasBlog:
Atheism is primitive . Do you know atheism began 500 years before Christianity and 1,200 years before Islam ?

cc : spacetacular

And Jackfizzle thinks atheism is modern

He never disappoints me.

CoolUsername:
Exactly, there is no argument for God that is not self-refuting or doesn't contain a non-sequitur. Kingebukasblog has brought up many such arguments and none of them have stood up to scrutiny.

I would suggest you read this article from time magazine

http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/

Based on that article I could theorise that the universe functions like a microwave appliance. If there was a Big Bang and a speculative big crunch would happen in the future you would need to ask yourself, how is it that the universe (which isn't alive) would steadily and precisely reverse itself to a big crunch in the future.

It's believed that for that to even be plausible then a TIMER was set from outside the microwave appliance. Something or someone triggered the beginning and set the parameters for its ending within the limits of time.

The way the universe is moving along does not suggest an erratic pattern. Neither does it suggest trial and errors. If indeed the universe has existed for billions of years by now the earth should have been depleted or run its full cycle as a part of the universe. But this is not so. Instead we see an increase in beauty.

Even in a game of billiards with its simple 16 balls the one with the cue stick has to calculate force and trajectory BEFORE setting things in motion and this is so because he has to determine the events thereafter. This is the universe in simplistic form how much more that in complex form as we know it.

Who calculated force and trajectory for the universe? Randomness? How many times did randomness attempt this random move?

And if randomness did where did this randomness originate from? Nothing or something?

if nothing, then where did something come from?

You can read about the author here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Aczel

His works would interest you.

johnydon22:
If nonexistence is a default state then God himself would also have to be nonexistent at some point. So if anything at all can exist then nonexistence cannot be assumed to be the default state.

Non existence is focused on the material world and not on a spiritual world. God is is not a part of the material world so cannot be put in your non existent default theory.

Telling the other guy to ignore a very clear observation does not help your argument. Running around with any and every speculation just so you can convince yourself that God could not have been if the universe was eternal is simply ludicrous.

How can one bring a WHAT IF to an argument?

CoolUsername:
God comes from the notion that non-existence is the default of reality. What if the universe in some form has always existed?

WHAT IF!

so you are holding on to atheism based on a WHAT IF?

As you can clearly see, you are so full of faith.

CatfishBilly:
I have no issues with NDEs, they are just a medical "mystery" that will be unraveled sooner or later.
What I'm interested in is the contents of their "afterlife" visions, I've read quite a few, Christian and moslems basically, and they have totally different accounts of what they saw, like hell for example each of the religions described it as how it looked like in their holy texts. Which raises questions of the authenticity of their "visions"

This your house analogy sef. A guest to an everlasting place of rest should take the front door, I don't get why he should enter through the chimney or back door.

Since it's an NDE and they came back from the experience it's safe to say they took a tour and were not meant to be permanent residents at the time so they could be ushered In through any entrance or even through an exit.

I do not know where you read yours but practically all Muslim NDE experiences I have read talk about encountering someone they termed as Jesus. So where did you get yours?

CatfishBilly:
Why do they come back with completely different stories of heaven and hell? There should be one heaven and one hell, right?

You saw where I mentioned leaving heaven and hell aside did you not? Focus on the other areas I mentioned.

Also nobody can say they had totally different accounts of heaven or hell Afterall if I decide to take you into a great house through the kitchen it would be a different view from when I decide to take you in through the chimney or the front door.

author=johnydon22 post=58993468]

So you cannot tell that religion is in fact a cultural construct and culture is born out of political structure of a particular people. One look at every religion in the world there is always an underlying culture behind the theme and motif. islam, Hinduism, judaism, christianity, Buddhism.

I am sorry but you have much to learn if such simple truths elude you

Religion exists outside culture. So which came first? Culture or religion?

There are many reasons to discuss any given matter and this holds true for any person that engages in such a discussion. I resent gambling, i am free to talk about gambling either as a way to communicate my opinions about gambling or an attempt to bring others to the light of the implications of gambling.

One is free to discuss religion due to reasons independent of the one options you have given above and Oh i am particularly glad about the "skepticism reason" isn't that enough reason to discuss religion?



oh it is simple i will list it for you

1. because i want to
2. because i can
3. because it is a public matter and i am part of the public
4. because i am skeptical about religious ideas and postulations (as we should be about almost every idea)
5. because it is fun
6. because it infringes on day to day activities around me, claws into the politics of the day and constitutes part of the cultural fabric of the society i am in.

Do you want more?

wait you can add one more to it.
7. because i like to

The only plausible reason you obviously have is number 5 because it sticks out like a sore thumb.


If you cannot grasp the point of a simple analogy, what exactly am i doing with you?

Use analogies that match this discussion. Politics holds a different origin and purpose from Religion.

Oh yes i very much have and i believe that atheist goes by the name folklaze or something here on nairaland.

And yes too both of your guesses are part of my numerous reasons for engaging



I am sure you didn't

The famous replying a question with another question - the points keeps going low.

You hold no points so trying to hammer down my position seems to be your only way.

An atheist has every right to chose any matter he wants to hold paramount in his life since the label "atheist" is not the only that defines any person who is one, he may also be a democrat or maybe a vegetarian, or homophobic or ant-religious.

Then which are you?

Anyone can chose a matter that they find worthy of being an optimum priority in their lives.

So Religion is your utmost priority? How so? Is the entire world suddenly too small to see other problems staring you in the face which are real?

I can also reverse that question: Why should the paramount concern of an atheist be of any paramount concern to you?

It's not my concern. Just holding a conversation and trying to get you to see the ridiculousness of your position and so called paramount concern.

I am sure you won't answer that as the first question also went unanswered but i will keep the faith

JackBizzle:



Ask why I said that the gods are primitive instead.

Jackfizzle, always looking for a way to dodge proper discussions.

You fizzle out just when it's getting interesting.

GoodMuyis:
User Mail Supermod from Homepage just above the bottom adverts

Okay thank you for the help.

Mr Seun this is one of such reports I wish to tender to you. I believe this website has rules which everyone must uphold.

author=johnydon22 post=58992198]

Yes religion is a matter that concerns the public, it is more political and cultural than it is divine. Would you tell me not to talk about politics or even culture? No you wouldn't.

As an atheist what do you know about THE DIVINE? and do you have any pointers to what makes Religion political and cultural because the last time I checked, religion has absolutely no scholarly consensus over it.

So it seems curios that you are right here to limit peoples liberty to engage in any topic of discussion as it concerns the public, religion is a public affair, so anyone can talk about it, you are yet to provide reasons why religion is not a matter of public concern.

Again I ask, what is the purpose of talking about it besides scepticism or a deliberate attempt not to understand it?


People discuss a particular issue for many reasons, many discuss politics to weigh the options at hand, many do same just to air their opinion or just for the fun of it. So what exactly is your concern on why people chose to discuss a particular matter?

We are not talking about politics but RELIGION. what is your reason for discussing it?


As i have mentioned earlier, many religions are without God(s) and it is actually well known that many atheists are in fact religious. So again religion as a matter is of public concern, not limited to a certain class or caliber of people.

Just as politics everyone is allowed to hold an opinion on religion, if you are to place a cap on what people can discuss or should discuss you must give reasons on which you base your arguments.

Again this is not about politics. Focus on religion please.

There are two points that i am going to use close this up with:

1. everyone has their own reason for engaging in a particular topic, religion is not exclusively theistic, it can also be atheistic so on that virtue even an atheist can claim as much right to religion as you.

Have you ever tried dissecting religion with a religious atheist? If you have done this, have you done so in an attempt to understand since its one atheist to another or you also did so as scepticism?

2. Religious skepticism is open for all, religious or not as long as you a member of the public your right to opinions of every matter is fundamental, so whether you are atheistic or not you have sole right just like everyone else to chose what you wish to discuss and have every right to hold an opinion on every matter you deem necessary.

You kept on repeating the same thing on every line and this is not an exception.

Now i have a question for you:

Are we all free to discuss religion or not just like every other matter no matter what our reasons for indulging may be?

The question should be, should religion be the paramount concern of an atheist since even you have been able to identify that God exists outside religion and that one can be religious without God and believe in God without being religious.

MONEYJOEE:
You this stupi.d brainwashed yahweh imbec.ile always obsessing on deist. Why the fuc.k you keep mentioning the deist god. Is yahweh a deist god? Evidence for yahweh is all in the Bible and we know the Bible is a book authored by ignorant goat herders. That alone disproves your sick Bible god. You musta realize how ridiculous it is to be a yahweh worshipper but there's this emotional, psychological and social thingy tying you to theism, so you continue to defend your irrational position with the deist god even when they stand against everything theism is about. I normally don't take you serious, had to quote you and remind you of your gaudy stupidity.

He used deism to offer an example of God outside religion as a foundation for his opener. And he is quite right.

johnydon22:
Here is the mistake: You have assumed that anyone discussing religion is doing so as a means to understand the concept of God but that is wrong, there is more to religion than just Gods and there are in fact religions without God.



So people are free to discuss religion or not ?

That's the question.


God and religion is not the matter but rather " religion" as a matter of public concern.

So people have every right to hold opinions about religion what ever their belief or unbelief is, No?

You keep saying Religion is a matter of public concern and I wonder what public group it particularly concerns. You seem to think it's a general concern and you are the super hero flying in to the rescue.

If you are not discussing Religion in order to gain understanding then what other reason have you got to discuss it besides scepticism? This is the entire point!

Even if Religion were true you do not wish to discuss in order to understand as you already said so why go around with the same monotonous scepticism as found in theodicy which is what I have come to observe in the atheists here.

If you now say you are not particularly being sceptical about religion as there is more to discuss in religion besides scepticism then tell me what that is because surely understanding isn't on that list.

johnydon22:
Anybody can employ religious skepticism, so why can't the atheists also do same?

Or being atheists makes them not qualified to also employ religious skepticism or have opinions about matters of public concern like religion?

Atheist or not, people are free to talk or discuss religion so what exactly is the point here?

Everyone is free to discuss religion but here is the issue. Is religion the ONLY understanding of God you know? Did you read anywhere that Religion keeps God in existence?

Why then do you have this fixation on Religion? Can you not find a clear divide between God and Religion?

JackBizzle:


A whole lot of words saying nothing

As expected you could not understand anything I said.

JackBizzle:
A meaningless question.

How is my question meaningless? You said the concept of God or gods by everyone is PRIMITIVE so what's your ideal idea of a MODERN God? If you say something is primitive this means you have a modern comparison. So what is it?

Seun:
Religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."(Google) This makes atheism a rejection of religion. We reject "the belief in and worship of ... God" because we have not been convinced that any God exists. Deists reject organized religion but their belief in the undetectable God is essentially a personal religion.

Not all believers in God's existence are religious so how do you reconcile that? Why would religion be a worship of a God or gods when a lot do not make a religion out of it.

By the way Mr Seun I have been meaning to reach you some way with some complaints. How do I do this?

JackBizzle:
Are you a Christian or a Buddhist?


Gone are the days you twist and strawman your way out of the talking points

Jack a lot of you here whom I have observed per your arguments for atheism are all coincidentally taking stands as atheists based on Theodicy and this is because you believe that the world as you experience it cannot be reconciled with the qualities commonly ascribed to God and gods. You argue that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God is not compatible with a world where there is evil and suffering, and where divine love is hidden from many people. A similar argument is attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism. (I find it strange that you all hold similar ideals and this speaks more of skepticism and not actual atheism).

I believe the originator of this piece talks about your lack of focus on God or gods but rather on your fierce attack on religion which truly has absolutely no link to God or gods especially since God is believed to exist without religion and has been existing before religion. So religion cannot be said to be the reason for God. Not every believer in A GOD has made a religion out of it. Some have simply stopped at A BELIEF.

How is it that you are deviating from what the originator of the piece is on about. The message is simple. Even you should be able to see it.

JackBizzle:
All man made gods.

They are all racist and primitive.

Yahweh for the Jews
Allah for the Arabs
Jesus for the lost sheep of Isreal.
Zeus for the greeks/Romans
Obatala for the Yoruba.




Mtchewewee

Is complexity a sign of being modern or is simplicity meant to be proof of actual steps in a modern direction?

What would be your version of a modern God?

Ranchhoddas:
What similarities do you speak of?

If you took time to study every NDE experience besides them talking about heaven or hell (leaving that aside) you will begin to see a pattern.

It could be patterns in conversation, contact, feeling, perception. None of those who experienced these were loonies.

People have been in coma for years and came back with clear tales of NDE visions while in coma. They have told of things physically and visually happening around them or in their homes which were far from the ICU they are in and all they have said were for the most part accurate.