₦airaland Forum

Now , let's look at infinite regression problem again and let's see what contemporary philosopher says about it.

"'Aristotle argued that knowing does not necessitate an infinite regress because some knowledge does not depend on demonstration:

Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premises, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is either true or a necessary deduction from the premises. The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite series): if on the other hand – they say – the series terminates and there are primary premises, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. And since thus one cannot know the primary premises, knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premises are true. The other party agree with them as regards knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal. Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premises is independent of demonstration. (The necessity of this is obvious; for since we must know the prior premises from which the demonstration is drawn, and since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its original source which enables us to recognize the definitions""

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


An analytical diagram of infinite regress below.

DeSepiero:
In essence, what created God?

I will begin to answer questions after the thread reached second page. I will take note of this one. The first question on this thread.

Well, I may eventually answer your question along the way.

Evangkatsoulis:
No smart person would ask who/what created God?

i agree with you but let's tolerate the question for intellectual dialogue.

Tortoise had once raised similar question...


tortoise challenges Achilles to use the force of logic to make him accept the conclusion of a simple deductive argument. Ultimately, Achilles fails, because the clever tortoise leads him into an infinite regression.


The discussion begins by considering the following logical argument: .........

A: "Things that are equal to the same are equal to each other" (Euclidean relation, a weakened form of the transitive property)
B: "The two sides of this triangle are things that are equal to the same"
Therefore, Z: "The two sides of this triangle are equal to each other"
The Tortoise asks Achilles whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises, and Achilles grants that it obviously does. The Tortoise then asks Achilles whether there might be a reader of Euclid who grants that the argument is logically valid, as a sequence, while denying that A and B are true. Achilles accepts that such a reader might exist, and that he would hold that if A and B are true, then Z must be true, while not yet accepting that A and B are true (that is, a reader who denies the premises).

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


We can see from the dialogue that Achilles cannot overtake the tortoise in the race because Achilles fails, since the clever tortoise leads him into an infinite regression which in itself is a problem.. This is similar argument atheist ask believer where does God come from or what created God. The idea is to win the race just like clever tortoise who use the same logic to win Achilles.


But wait there is a solution if the respondents do not want to turn the question around and act like a tortoise themselves.

This is an abandon thread of mine which I intend to make rich.

I am reviving it back to life.

budaatum:
Your single track mind must see in black and white. Shades of grey elude you.

The failure of proving exactly any truth as expressed by the Münchhausen trilemma does not have to lead to dismissal of objectivity, as with relativism. One example of an alternative is the fallibilism of Karl Popper and Hans Albert, accepting that certainty is impossible, but that it is best to get as close as possible to truth, [b]while remebring our uncertainty

In Albert's view, the impossibility to prove any certain truth is not in itself a certain truth. [color=#000000]After all, one needs to assume some basic rules of logical inference to derive his result, and in doing so must either abandon the pursuit of "certain" justification. as above, or attempt to justify these rules, etc. He suggests that it has to be taken as true as long as nobody has come forward with a truth which is scrupulously justified as a certain truth. Several philosophers defied Albert's challenge; his responses to such criticisms can be found in his long addendum to his Treatise on Critical Reason and later articles.[/color]

Hope you can read out .

Maybe i need to be pointing out or making bullet point where remark needs to be made to you like a kindergarten children.

OkaNaUbe:
hmm. Yanbaba just seized the moment.


You can be a prophet(ESS) and still not be a child of God. You can have the "grace'' or 'gift'' of prophecy. The latter means that you can still prophesy, not because God is with you, but the gift (given by God himself). Let me not confuse theological and divinity novices.

Also, one can prophesy by using 'other' powers.


In all, you can't truly serve God and 'bow' to blood 'crossing'. Call it culture for all you care.

it shows that you are not reading your bible... when Jesus was "presented" in Jerusalem by Mary and Joseph, the sacrifice made was "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons": read your bible I will not give you the verse.


There is diffrence between culture and worship.

DoctorAlien:
I think I agree. He certainly does read one out of context sometimes, and then multiplies words(sometimes very unnecessarily) to drive home his point, and in doing so he veers off the track all too often. I agree too that he has some degree of mastery over use of red herring.

sometimes I welcome his out of point premises just to make sure we have an intellectual discussion. But all do end up in futility. He brought an articule that he himself had little to zero knowledge about.. like I said earlier, that articule had been beaten to stupor.

DoctorAlien:
You provided a link to an article on "falsifiability" on wikipedia. Inasmuch as I don't think that article is treating a school of thought that "operates from the falsification of what one is taught", but a concept(of falsifiability of statements), I wonder how that article is of help to me.

That dude is a master of red hearing.....he will read you out of context. Is found of that. Even that articule he presented as opposed to what should be the reply had been beaten to stupor.

Triniti:
This mumu Ghanaian president has ruined the little economic boast his country had before he came onboard, he just increased tax on everything in Ghana starting from next month,beer,recharge card,hotels and so many other things prices will be going up. Saying foreigners must invest $1million as if there’s any Ghanaian that can boast of that amount in his/her account, the people are crying already, lamenting even on social media that the man has ruin them. They have vowed to send him out of office come 2020

What can a government do with 1.5% of its total tax revenue? What are its options for funding? What can a government do to improve the lives of ordinary Ghanaians with 1.5% of its revenue left for everything else? And what do you prioritise?

I am afraid that akuffo led goverment is the worst Ghana has ever had since democracy begin. It is currently a big burden for Ghanaians now.


And in regards to the Nigeria traders, ECOWAS (economic of weak west African state ) it is a weak regional organization that has failed many times over. If the goal of Ecowas is to promote trade among the 15 member countries, then it is a useless organization and Ghana will have no part of it. Since the formation of Ecowas in 1975 in Abuja, Nigeria, to facilitate trade among its 15 member states, only 12% trade goes on in the region.

The Ghanaian government has established the issuing of Ecowas passport, where none of the Ecowas protocol has been met. Presently, the 90-day requirement of free movement of Ecowas nationals has allowed the influx of vagabonds at the shores of Ghana; Ecowas nationals of Nigeria, Togo, Ivory Coast, and all the nearby countries are unduly exploiting this loophole to satisfy their own whims and caprices.

Ghana belongs to Ghanaians, and the laws of Ghana must be respected at all cost. If the laws say, no foreign nationals are permitted in retail trade, that is exactly what it means, no ifs or but. And It is the same with nigeria trade union but since Ghanaians are in minority compare to Nigerians in ghana make it non problem in Nigeria.but in all honesty. Many Nigeria are reallly not paying taxes as well. They were report on this case before.

And This current clueless NPP government of Ghana is to blame for all this current problem. How can a African regional organization that does not respect its own protocols be allowed to terrorize the people of Ghana? Let us talk about armed robbery, guns, and gang rapes of Ghanaian women. These crimes that are prevalent in nearby countries are now imported into Ghana due to this one weak Ecowas. To hell with Ecowas. ........pls note I am a dual citizen

budaatum:
It is amusing how you can claim "science is faith based" and mention the "problem of induction" in the same post. I guess if you're still stuck way back with Hume, it's understandable, though, being it's you, you probable don't understand Hume at all.

Try Popper's falsifiability for an update.

So, you're really more ignorant than I thought of . You are now puking bullshit, right? You don't even understand Hume? Well that is normal (you are known for red hearing). But let me educate you. Hume just points that we need to assume some basics like logic absolutes existence, uniformity and some other things that we can not justify them. But It's a technical necessity, whit out it we can't justify anything, that's what is called a problem. Are you aware that such problem also applies to mathematics and logics of philosophy as well and that makes your position self defeating?

That's the problem of induction. It does not invalidate testability of science at all. And Karl popper theory does not even solve it. infact is theory was beaten to stupor.

Please, if bullshit is the only thing that can come out of your mouth, spare us the irony of educating us with poper theory himself. You don't even understand Hume , how much of popper..... even popper falsifability theory was put into test and could not hold water.

Before you pushed me into another circular arguments that will take you more than a week to reply , educate yourself pls.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

[b][/b]

Babacele:
next time don't leave your audience in doubt as to derive their own meanings to your expressions. Without the cat, it remains what it is. bad guy.

in all honesty, I mean pussy cat..........

Babacele:
that is so disrespectful of women ,womanhood and our pride as man .I'm sure you understand.

Why are you so fastforword. The word pussy here is not about woman. I simply mean pussy cat. And he knows that is what I mean unless he intentionally denied it.

Babacele:
What do you mean by sophistry? You said there were no references but drew your attention to the sources Lewis employed in his book ,but now you are looking to discredit only one source of the examples, what about other sources?

What are bibliography employed in the compilation of the Bible? Do you know? That you obvious knoweth not doesn't discredit the entirety of the Christian Bible.

"'sophistry"" i will advice you to used the search engine. But not to be rude, it simply a way of making a clever claim but based on false evidence.

I never claimed they were no references. I only ask of references with the opinion that there will be one.if not I will not made mention of how his work heavily depends on the bible.

My intention is not to discredit his work but to criticised his work . That is not discrediting.


Does bible claim to be an historical book? The last time I checked; bible is consider by both Jews and the Christians to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans. But if there is any update , let me know.

budaatum:
I beg you please! I will die if you don't engage me, I swear to god.

As if by your posts you know what "decorum" even means!

lol......pusyy....when you begin to understand the word engage , I will take you seriously.. I am not engaging you Buda, As of now, I am playing with your intelligence. And that is what I will still do.

budaatum:
Don't cry, vaxx. If you had done well, we would gladly include you amongst the sensible and intelligent who can read past the cover of a book.

lol

budaatum:
Really? Despite the following at the back of your mind?!


By the way, Christ never claimed any book was about himself!

when I observe a sense of decorum in your manner, I will engage you.

Babacele:
You see , I said you have read the book! From Roman government periodic reports from overseas, Jewish writings, Christian records, secret records in certain pyramids in Egypt, Tibet and indian to Rosicrucian archives and the rest, Lewis made extensive references to. That Christ said 'when you preach the gospel and say Salam and if they do not welcome you leave without the sand from such homes' means his message is doubtful or false? That my bro is democracy.

i hope you know how sophistry work? Most of these writhing are not in circulation. Apart from the bible which I can actually tell.

For example the secret record to certain pyraimads is not objective

You don't claim a fact that is hidden . That is not bibliography.

budaatum:
Look at yourself talking about manners! I wonder if you ever go back and read what you've written? One can only shake one's head at your blatant show of ignorance.

This is you about a book that gives 4 subjective views in the gospels about Christ.


You can't touch my feelings vaxx. Just reading your incoherent posts should show you that.

How is this a reasonable response for Christ sake.

I actually play with your feeble mind. At least you display it emotionally here . Even if you reject it. It is obvious.

Babacele:
if ordinary mortals can use certain vowel sounds to impreginate matter to create or cause certain phenomena beyond an everyday experience,is the Most Intelligent God that won't be able to bring forth the manifestation of the logos through a Virgin? It may be beyond your comprehension.

I am not diving into this as it will derail this thread. But if you wish to hear my veiw , you can create a thread on this.

Babacele:
Democratic is giving people the opportunity of choice in a situation ,and that is what Lewis preemptively presented in his foreword or introduction wherein he did mention the sources or references he used in writing the book. It is doubtful if you have really encounter this book for you are so stucked in your uninformed perception of the work being without references despite the several references to Christian religious authorities, other sources , and nature's own endorsement years later through archaeological discoveries that corroborated Lewis claims.

Then you must have been reading my post out of context . I initially stated that his book is highly influence by the bible. What else do you want me to say in regards to that.

But as a lover of history myself , I need more to this and this is the reason I ask of the bibliography which you are doing very little to save.

Choice are not simply giving in democracy, choices are also promoted for people to choose their choices.


He is not promoting its own choice here but clearly giving a stand alone choice. That seems like one party system. Where you either reject or accept.

budaatum:
Mental Alchemy by Ralph M. Lewis

We can transmute our problems to workable solutions through mental alchemy. While this process is neither easy nor instantaneously effective, eventually the serious person will be rewarded. Certain aspects of our lives can be altered to make them more compatible with our goals. Use this book to alter the direction of your life through proper thought and an understanding of practical mystical philosophy.

This one is for you vaxx. It would help heal your miscomprehension illness, or at least help you understand yourself.

[url=https://f5db1a33c5d48483c689-1033844f9683e62055e615f7d9cc8875.ssl.cf5.rackcdn.com/Mental%20Alchemy.pdf]Download copy[/url]

The lack of manner in your speech is simply the reason I expose your intellectual nerds.


I am not here to hurt your feelings .

An atheist in the hiding somehow agree with the virgin birth of Jesus . Am sure he will not fight your opinion ""babacele"" since it seems we have different opinion on this topic.

Babacele:
For being democratic about his dealings with his audience and potential readers who may have their previous knowledge about Christ's life scrutinized means being doubtful?
Lewis work is a beautiful research work that has exposed so many openly hidden references to Christ 'life even in the Bible and some historical documents.
Does Lewis look one who speculates? You have not intelligently truthfully faulted any of the claims therein which influences my doubting if you have read the book at all. So when the holy infant was taken to Egypt while hiding from Herod, do you know what records were kept for future sake?

i think i have passed my message and it clear enough.

I ask a question in the begining of this thread.(i ask that the op should provide the bibliography of this book) You can't claim something as a fact unless you have proof to back it up. Whatever you will be claiming is simply an
Opinion.

The point of a bibliography is simple. It is to make your readers aware of the sources you used throughout your work on a project. That means it must include all of the sources you used while researching the topic, whether you quoted from those sources or not. It must be important to include them.

I agree that the work acknowledge Rosicrucian archives as where the information rightly source out. But what make up these source is my question.


And with your last question..... I don't know, and will you kindly tell us.,


At best that open statement is an honest statement to tell readers and audience that "" They are on their own""

Babacele:
It is obvious you have not read the book but wants to judge it.

There are dates,days and hours that special messengers of God or servants are born. And there are persons who are aware of and preparing for such visits hence proper records are kept and usually hidden from the public, about the life of such divine messengers.

The book already gave an initial doubt. ""Disregard it if you found it absolutely false""..

As a lover of history myself, one thing I have realised is- history is nethier objective nor completely subjective. Historians have their unique way of enticing readers. Actually I have read the book. You can doubt it if you can..

But I will suggest you should put these at the back of your mind

1.History is seldom black and white, it is mostly shades of grey..


2 .There is no such thing as an “unbiased” version of history. Every historian is biased which is inherent and because we are human. Only the extent of this bias might vary but apart from that, there is nothing called an unbiased version or neutral version of history.

Spencer recognise this at most and that is why he declared an apologetic massage at the introduction.

Babacele:
The virgin birth wasn't a fabrication and H Spencer Lewis being a trusted custodian of the largest, most informed body of knowledge in human development history, wrote extensively on other sons of God that came through the virgin birth.

There are many versions of the Bible in circulation with the king James version being most common. For your education, the bible is a book of books with more than 40 authors, and have passed through several reviews, additions and subtraction by the church fathers at different councils. And till this very moment a lot of reviews, synods ,researches, and debates are going on on Christian doctrines and the Bible .

Because the writers of the Bible didn't include about 25 or more years of Christ's life in the Bible passages means there are no reliable records about Him kept somewhere? This gap should evoke some questions in the mind of any thinker and student of the Christian faith.

The facts of Spencer Lewis exposition on this gap is not only backed by passages from the Bible, and certain Christian historical records, archeological discoveries years later have also lend their voices to the veracity of his facts.

Nobody hangs around obstetrics wards hoping to see a great person born -in order- to comply with previously written prophecies. That this was not thought through is demonstrated by the two genealogies offered in the bible to prove descent from David - two completely different genealogies, both through Joseph who it is claimed is not the father. The death stories in the gospels are wildly inconsistent.

Some historians have attempted to piece the evidence together. Bart Ehrman has written a few books like "Did Jesus Exist? I have even used his works here" And while examining the historical evidence for Jesus. Ehrman's position is Jesus existed which i also welcome. But in his virgin and resurrection position. I certainly disregard it and treat like a myth.

So I say there is no book or any other work be it that of Spencer or what that will be able to give you an objective view of "Jesus's" life. The only "book" that exists and which I recommend only is (The New Testament of the bible)and which was written by anonymous, third-hand parties at least 30 years after he is purported to have died.

All other works about Jesus's life are based on the New Testament of the bible.

Babacele:
hmmm. you just made my day! Been looking for the 'secret Doctrines' cos it was out of print.

Talking about the 'Mystical Life', Spencer Lewis wrote that awesome document ,cos it's more than a book, in response to critics and skeptics who Never believed Christ really existed. It was an opportunity to fill in all the essential gaps in the public life history of the most important person in Christianity which are clearly missing in the Bible. God himself must have sent Spencer Lewis.

Despite not being a Christian, i can sincerly tell you that Jesus existed and the bible is the only book from which you can form your own opinion.Why? It's simply logical that if you want to form an objective opinion about someone, the best place to start, is one resource you definitely cannot ignore is the book he or she claims is about himself. Reading other people's works or submissions about his person isn't forming an objective opinion, it's reading their opinions about him. At best, it's reading or accepting their opinion on what's objective about him.

The person of Jesus as most contentious issues (and in fact it is the most contentious issue there is) are really has no objective opinion out there because each author eventually takes a side no matter how objective he or she may try to be.. that is why Spencer already indicate that the book can be discarded. And even his book rely heavily on new testament. But it unfortunate bible is very silent about Jesus life(from 12 to 29 years).

Well the virgin birth and resurrection story is almost certainly a fabrication - as former Episcopalian bishop Shelby Spong points out.

Many indians historian claim Jesus description perfectly match a figure that exist during that time in India.

The foundation of the three abrahimic religion rely on this. If Satan was killed the story would have been told in a different way. Their adherents won't have a scapegoat for all their dirty deeds ,So satan dude has gotta take it all !!

budaatum:
I will bear this in mind the next time you disengage your brain and open your mouth.

stop being silly.

You already disengaged this thread with your unsound mind ........but.....

budaatum:
If one doesn't let him be, he'd drag one through post after post of pointlessness that would make one wonder why one bothered. A "waste of space" - on the days he disengages his brain which lately is often - insults space.

I just haven't yet worked out when and how I hurt his tiny ego.

vaxx don't care about your rant.Vaxx is simply catching fun.... :if you don't stop assuming unnecessarily, you will not free yourself from emotional bondage. You don't hurt vaxx and vaxx care less even if you try to hurt her.

Ranchhoddas:
How preposterous!!

I just had to let him be.

harebrained conclusion.

budaatum:
A screenshot is evidence you read it vsxx? lol!

Thing is, even if he read it, he'd still misunderstand it. Simple "sun is in the sky" sounds to him like "the sky itself is the sun or the sun itself is the sky".

A' itete m'ole, ole n'm'oloko ( if you don't catch the thief early enough, the theif will catch the farm owner).