₦airaland Forum

1feness:
I will update in time,thanks.

davien:
Are you referring to "kinds" as a classification scheme?

donnffd:
99.9% of sciencists believe evolution as a fact, the evidence for it is so overwhelming, DNA,embryology, anatomy,to name a few...you are just in denial,but for d sake of argument, let's imagine it's wrong,is d bible correct?...the bible chronology suggests that the earth is between 6 to 10 thousand years,I hope for your sake you don't believe that cos if you do,I really question your credibility as a scientist...the earth is 4.5 billion years n d universe is 13.8 billion years, there is tons of evidence supporting the claim...the bible doesn't even come close...so you see,eeven if evolution is wrong which it most certainly isn't, the bible isn't an alternative

dalaman:
He is playing God, that is what all believers do , play God but refuse to answer basic questions about the God they keep claiming and positing. How did God create anything since they insist that God created everything, saying that God created things without telling us how he created them is empty and laughable. Does that claim God should please use God and explain to us how the DNA of organisms mutate for example. How does God explain anything? God has never been used to explain anything, God has only been used to make claims. When you ask the God advocates specific questions they all run away. I want any body that claims God, to use God alone and explain to me how this God of his/her created the sun, how the sun functions and the mechanism it uses to power itself. Only God should be used to explain these things, after all the claim they speak to God, so they should speak to God and ask him these questions, when he answers them they can let us know. Anything apart from that means they are just making stuffs up and relying on our collective ignorance.

"Religion and God(s) started when man had enough intellect to form profound questions but not enough to find answers for them".

dalaman:
How did God create life? What did he use in creating the different varieties of life we have on earth? What mechanism did God use in creating the cells of living organisms? How did God create the different races of humans on earth? How did God create the planets and the stars? What did he use in creating the universe from nothing?

Teempakguy:
It's the other way around actually. life is fine tuned for the universe. The universe actually doesn't care.

but wait, if the sun was too far away from earth and water did freeze, how do you know some lifeforms wouldn't spring up with an efficient way to cope with that? by finding a way to live in Icy conditions? already, we have found some lifeforms that can withstand superheating and superfreezing. hence your first point is . . . well, doesn't apply.
Nitrogen oxyen ratio is so because oxygen is more reactive than nitrogen anyway. too much oxygen, it will burn itself out. restoring the original ratio. carbon dioxide is rather little because carbon is in high demand. in fact, the only reason why it even exists is because it is a result of respiration. think of the amount of organism that can be formed out of all that carbon. as for gravity . . . no, we can live pretty well without it. see space stations. but then, of course, we wouldn't look like this, but whatever life form that evolved would think "Imagine if we had one force, constantly pulling us to itself. that we could never escape from, that would be terrible!"

If the hundred blind men were not allowed to repeat a movement they had made in the past, they most surely will solve several rubik's cube in a few million years. and that is the thing about the universe. It doesn't repeat things. once something is done, something slightly more complicated will follow. and then another slightly more complicated thing will arise out of that.

what do you think will eventually happen then?

madjnr:
My guy there's no scientific theory like that... The only one I know of... Is the BIG BANG THEORY... Which is also not in the Bible

Pdizzle:
Read my initial post, i have said there's nothing mysterious about the triangle, just strange magnetic field that makes compass malfunction. Did you read about torpedo in the link you provided?

Pdizzle:
There's nothing wrong with the triangle, you can live on the water if you want to, the only problem is the magnetic field which makes compass and radio device malfunction, making it a deadly zone for planes and ships, as they'll be practically lost.

dake40:
Thanks for the compliment

""""""""" what does it means for an idea
or a concept to be objective, how a concept can be
universal but not objective"""""""""""


Objectivity is a central philosophical concept,
related to reality and truth, objectivity means the
state or quality of being true even outside of an
"individual"


Universality is, the character or state of
being universal; existence or prevalence everywhere



Could any truth be Objective?

Killing has been condemned by nearly "All" countries(Objectively)
Still, some countries issue out firearm to some individuals legally due to self protection..

Are they not contradicting?


Abortion has been condemned by "nearly all" countries(Objectively)

Still the "pro choice" have backed up Abortion

I still stand to be convinced to believe that there is one objective truth in the universe....

The fact still remains that at least 1% percent will turn down truth. Which makes it odd.


Universality of knowledge,truth,reality backs it that regardless of the rejection or prejudice, truth still remains and its the One.

" That death awaits all mankind is a Universal philosophical concept ( either you accept or not, it will meet you someday).


Do you know two of the major attributes of truth ?

Truth is certain

Truth is 100%

And when at least 1 out of 100 denied it, then It can never be called Objective truth but rather Universal......




""""""""""""do actions that are egoistic in nature necessary lead
to the happiness of persons involved?""""""""""



Rational egoism says "an action is "rational" only and only if it maximises one's "self interest".

"Self interest distinct from "selfishness"

Self-interest is essential for one's "happiness and
well being"

Selfishness
Concerned excessively or exclusively with
oneself orseeking or concentrating on one's own
advantage, pleasure, or well-being "without regard
for others"


""""""""""""""""""can cting
based on self interest ONLY be adopted as a
universal law?"""""""""""""""""



Not clear



"""""""and...is a subjective thinker a true philosopher and
is someone like that supposed to engage in any
argument at all?? since he believes in subjectivity of
ideas and consequently, relativity?
""""""""""

Thanks so much for this question. I'd really love to known the aspect you subscribe to before I answer this question.

Are you a permanent subjective thinker or permanent Objective thinker?

Mind you, you can't belong to the both classes! But one....

My reply awaits your answer!

promisechild:
What are natural laws? natural laws are immutable, immanent, unchangeable laws which are subset of the divine laws.


You asked can natural laws be broken?


Answer - yes it can be broken that is why we have the entity "Bad"



You asked if yes can they still be called natural laws- The natural law being broken does not take anything from the essence of natural law. These laws are universal and objective in nature. According to Oloruntoba violating the natural laws is the act of committing sin against nature.




Hence



What is good is good and what is bad is bad and these two concepts are objective properties that can not be broken into particles.

dake40:
I wouldn't waste time on this


I will argue for homosexuality ( abeg o, I no be gay o)

WHY?
The arguments posted above me are more or less against Homosexuality

How could knowledge be attained with out being
sceptical or double minded?

Epistemology grew up via the influence of the sophists.

When someone doubts your idea, then you are challenged!... It gives you sleepless mind.

I respect opinions and honour truth

I believe that "Truth is universal but not objective"


Ones opinion, ideas, thought, philosophy are influenced by
A, ones environment
B, ones culture,
C biological influence
D, religion
E, the way someone sees,perceives and interpretes things e.t.c

No fact is objective
I will subscribe to egoism syllogistically.

Egoism is an ethical theory of self interest as the foundation of. "ALL" morality

Homosexuality is favoured by Egoism

Therefore homosexuality is moral.



Man is the measure of all things
- Protagoras

dake40:
I wouldn't waste time on this


I will argue for homosexuality ( abeg o, I no be gay o)

WHY?
The arguments posted above me are more or less against Homosexuality

How could knowledge be attained with out being
sceptical or double minded?

Epistemology grew up via the influence of the sophists.

When someone doubts your idea, then you are challenged!... It gives you sleepless mind.

I respect opinions and honour truth

I believe that "Truth is universal but not objective"


Ones opinion, ideas, thought, philosophy are influenced by
A, ones environment
B, ones culture,
C biological influence
D, religion
E, the way someone sees,perceives and interpretes things e.t.c

No fact is objective
I will subscribe to egoism syllogistically.

Egoism is an ethical theory of self interest as the foundation of. "ALL" morality

Homosexuality is favoured by Egoism

Therefore homosexuality is moral.



Man is the measure of all things
- Protagoras

promisechild:
Good and Bad are two objective properties that can not be broken into components meaning what is good is good and what is bad is bad.


I strongly believe that nature does nothing in vain. Have you ever imagined why did nature furnished woman with a Virginia or do you think it just there for decoration and why did nature also furnish man with the long thing under them?



Using the philosophy of the sophist father(Protagoras) "Man is the measure of all things" as a support for homosexuality is absurd because there are things we know that are good and bad which is being guided by what is called the natural law. I don't think there is any society that encourages the killing of ones fellow human simply because we know it is bad to indulge in such act.


Following the philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas he presented 6 inclinations of man that decide or show what is good which are enumerated as follows

1. Educating ones offsprings

2. Living in a society

3.Having the knowledge of God

4. Self Preservation

5. Having Heterosexual activities


6. can't remember it for now

Freemanan:
It's a matter of choice and perception.... it's a relative issue that must be left to the discretion of the parties. On an objective note, I don't see anything repulsive in it (even though I can't engage in it).

Most people say it is not natural. Well, heterosexual is also not natural. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with nature. JUST procreate and nature has been fulfilled...

So I really don't see anything wrong with homosexual

damosky12:
Gaunilon a monk well grounded in Philosophy once criticised Ansalem's ontological argument that "God is that being in the mind than which no other being is greater than". Ansalem birthed an illustration of "the most perfect ireland"; that such an Ireland only exists in the mind because 'perfection' is not an attribute of contingence. This is applicable in the concept of Being. Being is not that which exists in the mind but that which exists in reality. Reality is a character of being here.

arcnomec:
please I have one question for all critical thinkers in this room......while I was in school,our philosophy lecturer drew this question at us....-"those an android rationalize? if yes,defend your assertion and if no,do like wise...... so it was a huge debt trying to defend ones postulation in school then...........So please help me and satisfy my curious mind...........Because your debt of being ness brought is to my little mind.......thanks

Freemanan:
The fact that you know there are some things yet to be discovered my the human intellect shows that those things exist. Because it exist nit in corporeal but in your mind and consciousness. Remember, Being qua Being.

Freemanan:
Exactly my point. A being must exist in order to be a being then what gives it essence is it's recognition by some consciousness that such being exist. A being without recognition it consciousness is not a being.

sherryshitt:
Hahahahaha, the topic just interest me nii, as I see u guys debating and making sense. I kw nothing of philosophy

Freemanan:
Let me address the bold one....
No, That's not what I am saying. PLEASE put in mind that Beingness is more of an abstract entity, well the whole of metaphysics is. Being here is not what cannot be something, it is not being until it is known and given essence to. Let me ask you, can what is unknown to man exist to man? If you tell the whole of mankind that there is a ship that flies but it has not been seen or heard of, you expect man to believe that that ship really exist. I opined that existence precede essence, so a thing must exist and be known to exist by any consciousness before it qualifies as a being. That is what I am saying sir.

And as for Parmenedes, he believed in few things and the plurality of existence is not one of those things. He advocated for Monism and such thinker is not really an authority in the matters of Beingness.

damosky12:
In the words of the pre-socratics Philosopher; Parmenides : "Being is, not-being is not"... In amplified terms, being is that which exists..

Freemanan:
I refer to all that exist as being sir. Both living and non living. Those rocks and water exist as small being according to Heidegger while humans exist as big Being (Dasein). Those rocks and water are beings because they exist but without humans giving them essence, they exist for nothing hence their emptiness. For example, a rock exist because it serves a purpose (essence) which is for architectural or geological dealings. Water is a being because it exist and it has essence which WE all know.
This is WHERE Albert Camus' idea of Absurdity will then fall in, that it is absurd for some things to exist without having to decide in which form they want exist or if they even want to exist at all. But this is an interesting topic for another day.

Freemanan:
Aristotle in his famous saying puts it that 'BEING QUA BEING' meaning Being is being or Being for being. Also the Great existentialist, Martin Heidegger said Being is a thing into death, meaning existence of a being is also a movement towards it's death therefore Being is nothing.

Going from the authorities above, Being is a metaphysical entity that moves in a vicious circle of empty and void purpose. Being is what most see as the essence of existence but this is wrong. I see being in the same light Heidegger sees it. As something that is nothing, that is continually moving towards emptiness.

Since being doesn't have essence on it's own with other things defining him, then Being is JUST nothing. For example, if a child is born today, that child is still a being but what begins to define his beingness is essence and what are these essence? The name he will be given,the language and culture he will learn to give him an identity, the educational line he will toll to make him know things because he came to the world not knowing. So being is actually nothing until these things starts defining him which is the essence. And as the Existentialists will put it "existence precede essence"
This means that for a being to be important, he must exist first before having essence, that he cannot have essence without existing. So the main attribute of a Being is that it must exist. A wood is a being according to my postulation. Humans are beings, cars are beings. All of these are beings because they exist in reality and they all have no purpose without essence, something to give it meaning.

The difference between Humans and Trees or cars under the concept of Beingness, is what Existentialists categorize as Being and being (big Being and small being). This is a discourse for Other day

Cc fynestboi