₦airaland Forum

Afrika is really in trouble if this mindset is prevalent

Irunmole1:
Stop spreading false information.
I have never seen this in all my years as an Awo.

Who told you the user of okigbe will have ERECTION problem. Why don't I have ERECTION problem or the multitude I have done it for?

Why am I not dead after doing the bottle charm or the multitude thag does it.

The only time your protection charm will back fire is when you use it for bad.

Once the cobwebs have been blended with heavenly grains (atare) it works according to its purpose it is no longer physical. It now holds spiritual significance. You have an idea of charms but you should learn and not rely on what you just hear from them say them say.

Ask questions and learn or else your kmowlege will come off as ignorance.

Both of you are parading lies.... nothing of such in Yoruba spiritual system. All this lies enter the system in the 16 century when orisha spirituality was corrupt by the Maafa. I am closer to the route and if there is any of such, i will be one of those who will have the knolwedge.

And to exercise your brain, with all the plentiful witches and sorcerers like you during the European invasion, why don't they use such incredibly powerful magic to defeat Europeans? Clearly it shows technology is real and magic is not. Let us focus on science. Science is the study of God's powers in the universe (electricity, chemistry, etc) while witchcraft is just superstition that produces no national effects just individual fear.

ckmayoca:
the guy called dangle is after his business... northern porous border is worse cos it's killing our security. they left there opened for dem brother .

You are right, dangote is actually after his business. Benin republic reject Dangote cement and since then, it has been a thug of war between dangote and the country.

Mkenya2019:
We are waiting for Africa free trade and we can work closely with Ghana to bridge the west and east divide.Nobody in Kenya has issues with Ghana.Nigerians and Cameroon have earned bad reputation.One famous Ghanian-Kenyan is Patrick Quarco.He probably can win a political seat if he wanted.

sure, the biggest partnership is coming soon. And once it successfully open, be rest assured, kenya market will illegally penetrate Nigeria market from Ghana. NIGERIA does not need to be part of the system before it work. it is Nigeria buisness men who will buy kenya product in Ghana and smuggled it to Nigeria. Just like how they are currently buying Ivorian and Burkinabe product from Ghana now. Nigeria border is too porous to avoid it. Ghana will benefit and kenya too will enjoy.

I am glad to read about Patrick quarco making wave in diaspora. We also have kenya-Ghanaian celebrity by the name Pamela odame. According to social media report. she has the biggest boobs in the country .....

You can watch her on YouTube. Just type the name.....

Obakillah:
Thanks for the warm welcome. I hope I don't get banned.

The only way to break the rule is by giving fact and making obaawonidiot look stupid in the face of international audience.

Mkenya2019:
I am glad you're still around. You and just30 are a joy to read.I learnt a lot about Ghana from you guys and there is no doubt Ghana is one Africa progressive nation.

obawonidiot is vaxx little dog,( I am the husband of his mother) he can go ahead and commit suicide if he find my presence here uncomfortable.

You guys are silent about Ghana this days.....

Mkenya2019:
That misogyny but insecure they are..they are running on empty and have resorted to heckling and base insults..and those that wield the stick they are using it ban us left and right.

Engaging obaawonidiot is an attempt to wiped away your intellectual reasoning and replace it with his own. You will retroggressed intellectually.


Just turn the table around and show him how stupid he is. I enjoy him when he explain himself foolishly. He is like a stubborn boss in action film, he never die easily..... .....

johnydon22:
Now he has left the original premise his OP raised.

Thank Satan. you are aware?

LordReed:
Good so have you witnessed such a thing? If you have what was it?

johnydon22 . Can you now see the Op validate my point. He is now asking for human perspective about the changes.....

johnydon22:
The question assumes the observers can ascertain change in the laws as it is.

E.g: Humans can't walk on water, suddenly they start doing so.

And as i said before, the premise is less about observing it and more about if God can do it.

supposing I told you i have cure to dog rabies, will you depend on my statement alone or ask me to demonstrate while you observed me.?

You can't push this question out of human perspective (observational method) if God decide to change the law of nature or maintain it today, the only way we can be sure of it, is thru our own observation (i.e) What we currently know about this nature and the expecting nature of changes in nature.......


Simple if God can do it or cannot will be base on your perspective . Hope that answer your question.

johnydon22:
Again, human perspective isn't the premise.

how will you know if the law are changed or not changed without human perspective?

That is Ghana. Laabadi beach hotel....

LordReed:
An unintelligent response because the question is not is the god omnipotent. Read the question again and think carefully before you answer.

BTW I didn't ask any question on like this on the other thread. Wear your glasses if you need to.

You love asking illogical questions and this is one of them.


Unintelligent as usual.....

johnydon22:
So, how does this connect to the OP's question? Because it is still unclear.

His question is built on the premise of Natural laws being changed on the whim of God not human perspective of natural laws changing.

how will you even know if the law are changed or not changed without observation. It is only what your human mind can understand that you can work with. Base on human mind , laws can change base on our current perspective. law are not set in stone. New observation open door to new understanding. So yes, by our perspective, natural law can change.

johnydon22:
Improvements in human scientific understanding of physics doesn't mean change in physics in itself but simply change in human understanding of it.

So, i don't really understand this comment.

what don't you understand?


This simply means nothing is actually changing but the human perspective. If X is known to produce B cus of D and it is later understood that X dosnt produce B, it is B that produce X to make D. It is simply telling us nothing is actually changing but human perspective that is observing this phenomenon. And if it occur, it certainly means there is improvement to our observation.

LordReed:
LMFAO! Which question did I ask? You brought mathematics and when I showed you maths you ran to it is not what you are talking about. Rubbish. LoL!

Do you hear yourself speaking here.

JeromeBlack:
I [s]used the division sign (÷) for my equations, therefore there is no need to start talking about numerators and denominators.

I never used the division slash (/) and so, no fractions or denominators.


I also noticed that you avoided talking about how you indirectly claimed that God cannot create everything since you claimed that my premise 2 for God's omnipotence is false. Contradicting yourself.


At this point, I would advice you to stop ridiculing yourself. It is embarrassing[/s].

i don't answer unintelligent question that is posed to abused logic.


But you can improve it . Holla me after.

LordReed:
Or can your god do things that completely defy the laws as we know them?

You are asking the same question you raised in the former thread. If God is omniscience?. X should be able to do x. An unintelligent question.

Well, laws are not cast in stone, laws of nature are not permantely fixed, improvement occur as we can see using the laws of motion as defined by newtom. they have been invalidated after we realised there exists a phenomenon called "relativity" thanks to Albert Einstein. which defies the second law. So the "laws" were improved. Similar was the fate of other 'classical laws.

Now scientists have developed a more refined set of equations and principles to explain the phenomenons that were once contradictory to the newer observations.

Since science is a continuous ways of improving our understanding of the universe, we expect more of this to come in the future. So Holding to the notion that God exists> one can safely conclude that whatever observations scientists make about the universe now, they will simply expand the scope of laws to bring those observations under the umbrella of science.


So in theory ""Science does not mandate observations to follow the laws; it mandates that the laws should explain the observations""

JeromeBlack:
Premise 2 states that God can create anything. Please, how is that false or illogical?

Are you saying that there are things that God cannot create?






What are you saying ogbeni? You are just talking over the place.

Did I bend any mathematical rule in my equations? Did use any false method in my equations?

So why are you talking about false methods?

So the situation is even worst. The dude does not even know the diffrence between numerator and denominator? Holla me next time. I am done with this irrational logic.

LordReed:
But when I show your illustration is flawed you go on the it is not the same route.

You never did show anything.. You only show your lack of understanding to the premises raised.

LordReed:
You are the one being illogical.

You are free to accused me of such... . Aren't you the one asking question out of context?

JeromeBlack:
There was no need to bring maths and infinity into the argument that omnipotence is ridiculous.

I just wanted vaxx to address the deductive argument.

cus you refused to connect how such illustration reduce your question to reducto absurdum.

LordReed:
Exactly what I was trying to portray to him. Can you see how he is backtracking?

You guys are funny people. You guys wiith your ill logic.

JeromeBlack:
i made a deductive argument with the problem of omnipotence. Address that deductive argument first;

Premise 1- God is omnipotent
Premise 2- This means that God can create anything
Conclusion- Therefore, God should be able to create another God just like himself or even more powerful.

A premises that is false even if it produce a true conclusion is invalid argument. An argument is valid if the premises lead to the conclusion. Your premises 2 is illogical as i have demonsrate its absurdity.

With regarding mathematics, there are paradoxes in mathematics.

If 5 x 2 = 10
Then, 5 = 10 ÷ 2

But then

5 × 0 = 0
5 = 0 ÷ 0

Following the rules of mathematics, 5 is equal to 5 and 5 is also equal to 0. Dividing by zero results in paradoxes.

The premise is that a simple division of two integers can be calculated by cancelling common numbers from the numerator and denominator. wrong premises will generally produces incorrect answers.

but if you change the dynamic by applying it to 16 divided by 64, using the method of cancelling the 6’s from the numerator and denominator. there may be other solutions, but the correct answer (1/4) which is obtained by that mostly-false presumed method.

LordReed:
Then don't bring what has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, simple.

You are the one doing that. Mine is illustration and it is allowed in argument.

LordReed:
So what has mathematical context to do with the nature of god since you say they are not equatable?

This does not have anything to do with my current postulation. Unless you want to raised a new topic

LordReed:
And which one were you attempting?

what i am doing there is illustration, demonstrating that such language is wrong in mathematical context.

LordReed:
You most certainly did:



It's very direct attempt to compare the god's nature with mathematics and then when faced with the prospect that your analogy will show you up you retreat and say no.

understand the difference between comparism and illustration..

JeromeBlack:
You are wrong.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

If someone puts forward a deductive argument, you can rebut it by either proving that is not valid or not sound.

That is, you disprove a deductive argument in the two ways:

1. You prove that it is not valid. This means that the premise does not meet the conclusion.

2. You prove that it is not sound. This means that the premise is not true.



You did none of that.

When I said you are ignorant of the discussion, it is even an understatement. You are even poor in your thinking process.

You yourself already establish that paradox is allowed in every language . Since true or false statement exist in every language. I push you further that statement is false. it is wrong mathematically and I demonstrate it by showing you evidence of your illogicalities. Is 5 still 5 if it is 50?


In mathematical language, nonsense question can't be answered as it is lacking sense.

JeromeBlack:
You and lordreed were arguing out of point.

I gave a clear deductive argument to show the reasoning behind the mockery of the concept of omnipotence

it is because you yourself is ignorant of what you are discussing. Deductive argument is meant to provide conclusive reasoning and not compelling argument.

The logic you’re referring to as deductive logic, which is a tool to ensure that your arguments work but based on illogicalities.. If you proof something illogically, you’re saying you want to design an argument that is ensured to be faulty. And that is what you are currently doing.

LordReed:
But you were attempting to equate the nature of the god with mathematics, how do we know that they are in fact comparable/equatable?

i am not attempting on anything God here. I am only demonstrating the illogicalities in that paradox by putting it in a logical language ( mathematics).

JeromeBlack:
Clearly, you don't understand how logic works. There are three logical problems with your argument.

1. The op's question about God's ability to create another one is a result from a premise and conclusion. Your question is just flat out nonsense.
Below is the valid deductive reasoning for OP's question:

Premise 1- God is omnipotent
Premise 2- This means that God can create anything
Conclusion- Therefore, God should be able to create another God just like himself or even more powerful.


2. A paradox is possible in any language. A paradox relies on something being true and false at the same time. True and false statements exist in all languages.


3. "Is 5 still 5 if it is 50?" Is just a nonsensical question. Write it in words and see that you are easily visually confused

IS FIVE STILL FIVE, IF IT IS FIFTY?

Your whole write up is full of logic abuse....You don't even understand your own illogicalities..... ....



Your postulation are logically inconsistent as i have demonsrate mathematically. Just check my reply to the next moniker. Stop abusing logic.