₦airaland Forum

First and foremost there's nothing like Christian religion section. Its Religion section i.e for all religions from christianity to hinduism to satanism.

A_K_O the present moderator is a christian and nominating a pastor or another christian as asst. moderator is unfair. We should try as much as possible to have a balance. You can't have two christians moderating the religion section there's bound to be bias towards jesus runs.
A satanist, ifa worshipper, AMORC or atheist will do.

Someone while nominating himself even boasted of a "skillful knowledge of the word" - what the hell is that?
To the satanist or atheist that purported "skill" is as worthless as shit paper.

Basildon1:
LOL, is that all(i'm hurt!),  , same toothless attack but no point , *checks for bite marks,wipes off spittle and yawns*

Did you make any sense?

^^^
Ha ha ha very funny!

Basildon1:
LOL, another NL 'bad guy' , what r u getting worked up over to start bandying the words 'mindless' and 'thoughtless' -you simply come across as bitter if not you will realise you went off point.My past comments,even on this thread, have shown that i dont support Church exploitation but to say Jesus is not real still remains laughable!!Feel free to chat more breeze, you seem to h

Who cares if you support church exploitation or not?. . . . . What do you want, an award?

You were trying to feel all 'FBI profiler' making brainless statements on what you think I am.
I laugh because somewhere in your warped mind you feel your opinion of me matters to me.
Newsflash. . . . I don't give a shit!

babaearly:
You are scared ,why,because they are far more Intelligent than You.

What the hell is this?
Who died and appointed you psychic-general of nairaland?

@Topic.
Even though we disagree all the time I like those guys. . . At least they're independent albeit hard line. They read their bibles personally. Those you need to be scared of are the goons who go about kissing the arse of theiving jerry curled pastors, they are the potential suicide bombers.

Deep Sight:
@ Tudor - You give me a very easy question! And my answer, i hope, will bring you up to speed in terms of the non-physical reasoning we are trying to extablish!

For the physical things in your list, the reverse is simply: non-physical! (E.g: Tangible/ Intangible).

For the non-physical forces you mentioned (e.g: gravity), the reverse is simply the absence of that force!

For the rest the answers are so simple i am astonished you could ask it -

Cold? Heat obviously! Please don't fritter away our precious time with such trivia!

Man? Woman!

A nation (defined as a joined ethnic group?) Nomads!

This is the last time i will spend my quality time answering questions such as these, Tudor. Rather than toss these trivia around, please answer the question: Is the principle of duality not self evident in all that exists?

Re: Light/ Dark - Up/ Down - Good/Bad - something/nothing - etc. Answer me, Tudor, no more pranks.

Ha ha dude, I'm not here to make life difficult for you. I asked the questions albeit easy so as to be explicitly clear on what you mean by "duality".
Since you choose to see the world in black and white so be it. I agree with you, carry on.

P.S : if the logical reverse of full is empty, what is the LR of half? (just curious )

Deep Sight:
Here goes: Tudor -

Do you accept the principle of Duality: namely - that every quantity, element, or concept, must perforce have a logical reverse - for example  - up and down, light and dark, positive and negative?

Really?
Everything Must have a logical reverse?
What is the logical reverse of the following, gravity, earth, copper, sodium, man, electromagnetism, distance, numbers, cold, rain, nairaland, nigeria, spirit, soul, earth, milky way, supernovas. . . .

Basildon1:
While i do think there's a generally agreed point that some churches might be too demanding and there's a level of affluence displayed that is regarded as unnecessary, you come across as a christian basher and i'm afraid i now see your views border on the unreasonable, to say the least,laughable!!!

How your mindless and utterly thoughtless opinion of me is supposed to mean anything is beyond me. . . . I laugh in tongues!

Sometimes I wonder how stupid some people choose to be. I don't blame pastor chris and the bunch of pilfering buffoons who call themselves men of god.
If Jesus were real his nonchalant attitude towards dealing with charlatans deceiving innocent people(who are just sincerely out for a saviour) with his name speaks volumes. . . . .

I keep waiting for this elusive proof brother deep sight promised, so far so good. . . .

Why are you people complaining?
Did Dora ever mention at any point she's anti-PDP or anti government? Has she ever claimed to be a fighter for the masses or good governance advocate?

She was a government/ PDP employee at NAFDAC and did her job well. Now she's information minister and doing fine to the best of her ability. . . . The only way you can condemn her is if you have evidence for corruption, till then shut the mess up!

It's not her fault if you assumed her to be what she's not. . . .that's your problem!

Hey, the $10,000 have got to be spent somehow.

Na wa oo.
Even mozambique no respect us again. . .what a shame!

I can tolerate any religion but islam is pure shite to me.
Just a bunch of heartless savage morons threatening to pull us back to the stone age. I honestly fail to understand why a sane person will subscribe to such barbaric faith. . . . It just shows how useless some people are intellectually.

mazaje:
Fox news :oTudor you be sean hannity cousin?  abi you sef be conservative right winger. . .

ha ha.
I'm purely centre right when it comes to the goverment i.e free trade, free market et al.
But for other issues like abortion, religion, science and co i'm leftist except for the death penalty where i'm totally PRO. . . .

ThoniaSlim:
I'm not fighting. . .just the manner he made his statement was rude. . .

The highlighted part was what I meant. . .If the man loved her at least he would try as much as possible to see her frequently especially since he visits her location frequently. . .

I'm not fighting either and sorry if my statement came across as rude it wasn't intentional.
The point I tried to make was expecting a lover to go out of their way to please you is IMO selfish and unfair. . .se fini.

Deep Sight:
And this cell did not require similar intelligent design? Is it logical to think these things?

I'm suprised you use the word logic with a straight face. What's logical in what you've presented?
That your duplex is built by 3 men means mine must also have been constructed by three men- is that logical?

A laptop isn't found in nature .it's a cheap and inefficient imitation of what it took nature billions of years of trial,error and probability to acheive. There's nothing new or extraordinary about the laptop everything from the way it works to it's composition is found in nature. This brings me to my earlier analogy if you design a stone tool and nature produces a similar one (probably 1 in 2000 chances) that in no way prevents it's use for a purpose.

Deepsight.
Peradventure I come across a rock shaped like that chiseled by forces of nature like heat and erosion is that intelligent design?

I throw a dynamite, blast a giant rock into pieces and some fragments turn out like in the picture above does that constitute intentional design?

That mine was created unintentionally and yours intentionally designed does that in anyway prevent it's use as a tool for cutting and killing?

ThoniaSlim:
Wait did you just call it a relationship. . .cus me don't think so!  

You've got to know when a man ain't into you. . .and let him go. . .clearly he ain't feeling you. . .cus if a man loves a woman. . .he would go out of his way to please her!

So if I don't lose an arm and leg as well as beheading my mum for my girl then I don't love her, right?

Why don't the girl go out of her way to please the guy instead of the other way round?
Infact expecting one to go out of their way to please you in a relationship is SELFISHNESS and not love.

Look at them all dissing FOX news. IMO they're the best!

You have a point though but some guys aren't that particulate about seeing you all the time. The boyfriend might have important business to discuss with the friends and it does not in anyway subvert his feelings towards her.

Na wa oo. . . . do you expect your boyfriend to pack his stuff and camp on your forehead?
Give him space abeg.

There's absolutely no way I can accept a dead white carpenter as my god. . .never!

This is really becoming an annoying problem. . . . Worst is the bainwashed congregation fail to see these two-kobo bastard pastors for the crooks they are.

It's shameless kleptomaniacs like idahosa, oyedepo, Adeboye and co that pioneered this holy crime business. The early nigerian church was all about righteousness, holiness and charity but when these hungry fools appeared on scene with their "word of faith" crap it became money! money! money!

The government had better do something about this growing trend. Advance fee fraud has graduated into something hollier. . . It was a good first step banning fake and staged miracles on TV by charlatans like pastor chris. We just hope to see more action.

Deep Sight:
Only the first two questions above are relevant to this discussion. What God may hope to acheive through Creation, or what he (or she or it) may want from us, and whether we can experience him, are all non-issues.

THE ISSUE IS HIS EXISTENCE.

Addressing your relevant questions only:

   1. Is the prime mover what i call God - YES.

   2. Is the Prime Mover a being? It must be. One element cannot bequeath attributes to another element that it doesnt have itself. I challenge you to show me even a single instance of such.

This is made on the assumption that the so called prime mover magically created the universe out of nothing, right?
I would think of this prime force as the event that set in motion the chemical reaction that lead to the formation of the universe as we know it. Whether it be the explosion of a parent body whose fragments dissipate to form universes or whatever.
How you came to know that this thing must be alive is beyond me.

No one here argues that there's no first event that led to the universe, so it was never the argument. All we ask is that you prove the extra characterisation and nature you bestow on this unknown.

Its impossible. To the extent that the observable world contains creatures of intelligence and feelings, it is inconceivable that the Prime Mover (whatever it may be) does not have embedded in its nature the genetics of those very attributes. And to the extent that it does, then it must qualify as a being.

That it has the genetics of those attributes does it mean it's expressive in the original state of the mover?
Just like in the evolution theory where it's postulated nitrogen, hydrogen and bla bla mixed (under the perfect condition) in the primordial soup to form the first living thing
, it doesn't mean the soup itself was alive even though it had the components for life, does it?

Deep Sight:
Only the first two questions above are relevant to this discussion. What God may hope to acheive through Creation, or what he (or she or it) may want from us, and whether we can experience him, are all non-issues.

THE ISSUE IS HIS EXISTENCE.

Addressing your relevant questions only:

   1. Is the prime mover what i call God - YES.

   2. Is the Prime Mover a being? It must be. One element cannot bequeath attributes to another element that it doesnt have itself. I challenge you to show me even a single instance of such.

This is made on the assumption that the so called prime mover magically created the universe out of nothing, right?
I would think of this prime force as the event that set in motion the chemical reaction that lead to the formation of the universe as we know it. Whether it be the explosion of a parent body whose fragments dissipate to form universes or whatever.
How you came to know that this thing must be alive is beyond me.

No one here argues that there's no first event that led to the universe, so it was never the argument. All we ask is that you prove the extra characterisation and nature you bestow on this unknown.

Its impossible. To the extent that the observable world contains creatures of intelligence and feelings, it is inconceivable that the Prime Mover (whatever it may be) does not have embedded in its nature the genetics of those very attributes. And to the extent that it does, then it must qualify as a being.

That it has the genetics of those attributes does it mean it's expressive in the original state of the mover?
Just like in the evolution theory where it's postulated nitrogen, hydrogen and bla bla mixed (under the perfect condition) in the primordial soup to form the first living thing
, it doesn't mean the soup itself was alive even though it had the components for life, does it?

Deep Sight:
Only the first two questions above are relevant to this discussion. What God may hope to acheive through Creation, or what he (or she or it) may want from us, and whether we can experience him, are all non-issues.

THE ISSUE IS HIS EXISTENCE.

Addressing your relevant questions only:

   1. Is the prime mover what i call God - YES.

   2. Is the Prime Mover a being? It must be. One element cannot bequeath attributes to another element that it doesnt have itself. I challenge you to show me even a single instance of such.

This is made on the assumption that the so called prime mover magically created the universe out of nothing, right?
I would think of this prime force as the event that set in motion the chemical reaction that lead to the formation of the universe as we know it. Whether it be the explosion of a parent body whose fragments dissipate to form universes or whatever.
How you came to know that this thing must be alive is beyond me.

No one here argues that there's no first event that led to the universe, so it was never the argument. All we ask is that you prove the extra characterisation and nature you bestow on this unknown.

Its impossible. To the extent that the observable world contains creatures of intelligence and feelings, it is inconceivable that the Prime Mover (whatever it may be) does not have embedded in its nature the genetics of those very attributes. And to the extent that it does, then it must qualify as a being.

That it has the genetics of those attributes does it mean it's expressive in the original state of the mover?
Just like in the evolution theory where it's postulated nitrogen, hydrogen and bla bla mixed (under the perfect condition) in the primordial soup to form the first living thing
, it doesn't mean the soup itself was alive even though it had the components for life, does it?

Uh oh, this discussion is going down an all too familiar route.

Deepsight,
what you've been able to show is there should (according to you) be a first cause/prime mover/force for the universe. . . . Is that what you call god?
Is this force a 'being'?
What does this 'being' hope to acheive by creating the universe?
What does it want from us?
Can we experience this prime mover?