If you like this post you're a paedophile!

Bump

Hello,

I wish to apply to the University of Abuja for admission into their LL.M programme this year.

I'm looking for information about the tuition and other fees, the length of the programme, the quality of the programme, the courses available and any other relevant info from someone who has completed the programme.

General info about the school from any student of UniAbuja will also be highly appreciated.

Thanks!

texanomaly:


Actually I'm one of them. I do believe God exists. He exists beyond the shadow of a doubt for me, but I'm also aware that I cannot prove that to someone else.

Knowing God is something that must be experienced personally. A personal relationship with God is not something that can be explained into existence.

I do wish everyone felt the joy and love that I feel. I won't try to force my beliefs on anyone though.

Very well. Don't worry too much about other peoples' love and joy tho. We all have our sources.

texanomaly:
I saw it over and over before I finally left the Religion section. No one can prove anything one way or the other. We just keep banging each other over the head with our opinions. I guess it's the debate that makes it interesting. I used to get involved more when I first came to NL. Now I just sit back and watch the sparks fly.

Here we go around and around again...

*sighs*

It's like children trying to prove, "My dad is better than your dad!" How can that be proven when both children believe they are right no matter what the other says? You will never convince one that the others' is better.

Religion can't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a God. Science and logic cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt there is no God. So...

Is it the love of debate that fuels the fire?

You are quite right. However some people do get convinced by some of the arguments. I think the modest conversion rate might add some fuel to the fire, with most commentators hoping to release other commentators from ignorance.

I suspect that theists will not like your saying that God cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt since they consider God to be proven to them.

I wish it were that easy.

I have an idea to win this.

They are enemies and enemies fight. They are not mortal enemies (pun intended) so they don't fight to kill. Don't over analyse it.

Right.

Assuming these stories are true, you are mistaking corelation with causation. People died after mocking God, but so did people who never mocked God. Jesus himself died violently. What are we to make of that? All your OP tells me is that you wish people would die violently for mocking your chosen God.

texanomaly:


Wow. Interesting question. I'll park here a watch this play out.

Have a go?

Some say evil* exists because of the exercise of free will, i.e. people choose to do evil. Interestingly, the Creator also has free will but is said to be unable to choose evil. All this is in an effort to absolve the Creator of any blame for the existence of evil. What this claim actually does is credit the Creator with giving us evil as an option between various courses of action. It is impossible to select an unavailable option and we cannot choose to do evil if evil is not available to be chosen.

Some might further say that evil is the absence of good and that if we are able to choose to do good, we must also be able to choose to not do good. To them I give the example of (physical) life and death, the absence of life; you can choose to die but you cannot choose to not die. So it is arguably permissible to lack a complete set of options.

How would you avoid the conclusion that evil was created for us to choose?

*Evil here excludes natural processes such as disease and disasters.

johnydon22:
I quite agree with the Op title, it is very true...

It is. People are smart or not before they become religious or not. I agree with much more than just the title tho.

Bring your wife so we can test these tips on her.

I won't do anything. Fortunately or unfortunately I'm not the boy's father, who is a terrible parent tbh.

The OP is quite right, if you think about it. Especially that part about misusing "logical".

kaboninc:


Hehe. You don't want me to win abi?

You are already a winner with such lovely posts.

kaboninc:

I like your earlier post very much.

What do you guys think about a 24 hour limit? Any post that hasn't got one "like" after 24 hours wins?

Norway

Yonder

Creep, Fret, Erect.

Trailer.

Rhythm

So for how long should a post be without likes for it to win?

Danish

Nordic

Philosophy.

Sly, tilt, stilt.

Assuage.

Expend

Has anybody won yet?

UyiIredia:
A married bachelor is self-contradictory, a world without God isn't. Again, it is stup*d to say one can't imagine a world without God if one doesn't believe in it.

For the last time, a belief that God made this world is not compatible with the idea of a world without God having the same features.

Heat and time aren't physical. Consciousness is also not physical. If you can't state the physical properties of consciousness, you have no reason to assert it's physical.

It's like you were not even listening.

Then your position that life arose naturally isn't evidence-based.

Make of it what you will.

If an infinite regress of causes is illogical then you can't presume all designers must have been designed. By necessity, one designer must not have been designed and that would be God.

If an infinite regress is illogical, then the argument from design leads to an absurdity. It is not for you to change assumptions based on what the outcome of your argument will be.

UyiIredia:
You didn't need to. You said this . . .

"If you believe that God exists, and he is necessary for the
world you are in to exist, then you cannot mean anything
when you speak of a world without God, and you can't
imagine it either."

. . . which is stup*d. You can actually imagine a world without God even though you believe in God.

Can you mean anything by speaking of a married bachelor or imagine what one is? If you think you can, you are imagining the wrong thing. That is the sort of point I am making.

Heat and time aren't material, they are conceptual and this is more obvious for time. Your point here is entirely absurd. Explaining something in physical terms doesn't make it physical, that could make immaterial abstracts like justice or beauty physical.

You must have a personal definition of absurd. Heat and time are physical quantities, just like energy. Physical terms means in terms of a physical explanatory framework, i.e. physics. How do you propose to explain justice in that manner?

If consciousness is a physical property of the particles and structure that make up the brain, you shouldn't expect it to have its own mass and what not.

You haven't presented any evidence. It should be clear that I want you to state the evidence for abiogenesis.

That is all the evidence I have.

Is an infinite regress of causes logical ?

I don't know. I think it's very messy, but I'm yet to see any sound disproof of it. My instinct is that it is illogical. Because it is possibly illogical, the question of who designed the designer is an attempt to show that the argument from design possibly leads to absurdity.