₦airaland Forum

obinna58:
You are not so sure about reincarnation but you explaining how it's possibly going to happen, we all have that lil truth inside us but chose to ignore and go in such a way that will favor us, what made you special from other animals is because you understood the existence of mind, I'll tag it as being lucky just as people exist in favourable environment
The only thing that made me not to doubt reincarnation is the possibility of existing at first, we might continue to exist in different form of animals even in a million times not knowing until you luckily reincarnate back to human where you will start experiencing the existence of mind(knowing oneself)
DNA doesn't count, if it does it can manipulated through science

life itself is about probability.... The chances that it is true ... Is what i presented...

obinna58:
Crap

tell me how is it a crap

AgentOfAllah:
Vaxx could you rephrase this post? I really don't understand what you intended to write here.

I am not concentrating.... You can recheck now

AgentOfAllah:
Have you read Paul Davies' works? I recommend "God and the New Physics" it's a fascinating read. Anyway, read this article titled: "Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it", written by Paul Davies, to understand that remark in its proper context.

Science is perfectly capable of pointing out the difficulties in its own theories. I'm even willing to wager with you that every single thing creationists quote as some kind flaw they discovered with scientific theories are things the very scientists who developed the theories highlighted themselves. It is just as important to highlight your shortcomings in science as it is to report on your successes. This gives future scientists new interesting questions to explore, which is why scientific discovery never ceases.


You're conflating two different things here! The notion of nothingness and the idea of complexity. "Complex design" is not a counterpoint to "nothingness". "Somethingness" is the counterpoint to "nothingness". No one I know of, argues that something came out of nothing. That is indeed, a tenuous argument, simply because no one knows what "nothing" truly means. Even space vacuum isn't nothing, and as far as we know, zero energy has never been measured anywhere.
As for "complex design", that's just a forced concept which requires you to first assume the object of examination was designed. Such an assumption is uncalled for in the absence of evidence.

i insert the idea of nothingness into the topic becuse the concept of overwhelming design can't be overlook... ... It must surely come from somewhere ...Even Paul admit ... The evidence use by the creationist to back up the complex designes is both observable and testable and that make it scientific....what make it complex here is the ability to produce similarities....


Will science be able to produce a versions of the universe like ours, what about mammals (biological system ),ecosystem like ours and so many more....if this version can be produce using scientific method.... I am ready to consider the concept of complex design baseless.....

One very interesting thing here is.... Evolution theory do not discredit the concept of complex design....

Sarrassin , obinna58 , Nlmember..

Visit this link to understand the concept clearly....I have objection with babalawo dream concept.....

Most of what we experience through the dream are result of how our brain behave.... We have a magnetic brain that could hold on to over a 100 years event....

Sometimes this memory replay itself like a video when our body is resting.....


https://www.nairaland.com/4068046/yoruba-version-life-after-death

adepeter2027:
This is the problem with most people. When the argument no longer suits the topic, they drift.

Thanks bro. I'm currently stressed up. I can't type again.

But a message for you and Butterflyli-on is; FAITH AND EVIDENCE are two parallel lines that can't meet, no matter what.

Once more, thanks

you are welcome

AgentOfAllah:
Colourless (col·or·less): Without colour

You cannot say two things which are colourless have the same colour, let alone that one derives its colour from another. That's just abuse of logic.

I agree wit you

adepeter2027:
Bro, you Dae fall my hands the more óò. Why are you guys shifting the definition of faith to suit the topic on ground?

Okay, lemme ask you this;
Can gaseous oxygen be seen? No
Can oxygen be felt physically? No
Can presence of oxygen be experimented? Yes.
Can oxygen be quantified? Yes.

Does that mean OXYGEN evidence is accepted based on faith?

I want your own definition of faith, then we can continue because I'm not understanding comparing loving some as having faith that person LOVES you.

Morealso, like you stated above, faith is a thing of the spirit realm, can the love we have for some be equated to something of the spiritual realm?

haaa... Oxygen is a chemical element while love is an abstract object.... You can't deal with them in the same manner....one is acid formation and another one is natural feelings..dem no look alike...


Faith in my own definition is when your belive have reached an higher state of confidence....

AgentOfAllah:
I don't think we can agree on that. Evolution is supported by a staggering body of evidence. Creationism is supported by staggering speculations.

evidence of creationist isn't only logical it also has a science base... I even suggest creationist and evolutionist should work together ...the see hole that evolutionist could not see and they point it to them not to ignore the basic scientific law... An authority on science a physician paul Davies said, “The appearance of design is overwhelming.”

Why the complex design is logical...

logic has it that nothing produces nothing. When you test nothing like zero… no energy,, no air othing comes from it. However, if you stick something into nothing and something comes out of it then it is solely because of the something that is introduced to the nothing. This is logical.

Nothing is not even testable base on science method

AgentOfAllah:
What colour?

the colourless nature of both object ....

adepeter2027:
No reasonable person will assume or play a card of risk believing someone loves him/her without convincing expression of the other party.

Do you wanna equate loving someone as having faith in love/affection? Cos I'm not understanding your analogy.

Infact, they don't correspond at all

risk is a way of measuring whom you are... You take risk, you can easily calculate the expansiveness of your capacity.. A reasonable man should therefore take the risk.... Who know it may be true and if otherwise you have no worries.... It will only give you the opportunity to learn next time....


Yes... To belive someone love you is a faith that cant be scientifically proven.. Love work with faith.... Physical qualities isnt enough measurement...

adepeter2027:
Bro, be honest please.

You say faith is proof?
Proof of what?
Seems you don't know how to define faith.


Definition of faith
faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1.

do not forget this character of faith... Concreteness of confidence.... Someone who have faith rely so much on this concept... I gave an analogy
that an atheist may have faith that he or she is loved by someone, yet this is a condition which can't be scientifically proven. But there IS evidence; selfless acts of kindness, physical attraction.

AgentOfAllah:
Any conclusion that derives from a speculative premise is itself, a speculation. Period!

Surely, you're not suggesting that logic, whatever its premise, takes preponderance over empirical observations?

The argument for design isn't logical/observational, it is resigned speculation. "Oh it looks complex, therefore design!" I fail to see the logic in that.

Yes, the sky also scatters light, so only appears blue when there is an abundance of blue light around (such as from the sun). Otherwise, yes! The sky is also colourless like water.

on this case ... Can we both agree that evolution theory and creationist ideology still need more evidence of truth .....before we can finally give a conclusion..... ?

butterflyl1on:
True, faith is applied in many areas of life. Some consciously and some unconsciously. Atheists believe faith only speaks about God but they do not know that faith also makes real a promise from a fellow human even when the promise is yet to be fulfilled.

If Dangote promises to give me 1million naira tomorrow morning I quickly asses the capability and ability of the one who promised ( that is Dangote) and I know he is more than able and he would not want to embarrass himself by failing on such a small promise when he is worth billions. So I have faith that Dangote would honour his word as he said.

This begins to affect my joy, my mood, my life, my thought process and the result is a happier and more peaceful me. Then when the promise is fulfilled, my faith is justified!

until we begin to see difference between logic and science.... The issue will never be settle... The empirical evidence isnt the only method of truth seeking... In court of law for instance... They are so many method of truth seeking which do not follow scientific method...

AgentOfAllah:
Yes, the sky also scatters light, so only appears blue when there is an abundance of blue light around (such as from the sun). Otherwise, yes! The sky is also colourless like water.

if that is the case... My friend logical evidence of water taken its colour from sky hasn't been prove wrong...

OliviaPope:
you call faith proof? that's funny! look, it's very okay to believe that god created the universe or that the tooth fairy exists but you must also understand that beliefs are just that, beliefs and should never be mistaken for facts. you might have "proof" or might be able to provide reasons for believing but if they can't withstand thorough scientific scrutiny and counterargument then perhaps you should have a rethink.

the issue here is every evidence of truth shouldn't be base on scientific evidence.... Religion isn't science and therefore most not necessary follow scientific method to verify truth....they are other method truth can also be verified ...religious follower may look at nature, history, logic or other departments of human inquiry and assembled fact to conclude that God does exist, even though material proof is lacking.

The development of a full-fledged religious conviction and practice is built on "Faith" where hard evidence is lacking.

Those who deny God still have faith in other areas where proof is lacking. The atheist may have faith (may "believe" that he or she is loved by someone, yet this is a condition which can't be scientifically proven. But there IS evidence; selfless acts of kindness, physical expressions and more....

purem:
Okay now I get it....

There's nothing to argue on anymore....

But what I do know is dat philosopher don't make findings unlike science.

you don't get it.... Philosopher make finding's but the pattern of findings is different from science...

adepeter2027:
You don't like me.

You want them to chop off my head

hahhaaaa. Jos is much liberal than many northern state.... In fact it has more Christian than Muslim...

purem:
Am really a learner here o

So u're telling me that philosophy is greater than science ?

That philosophy and science has nothing in common?

That philosophy make all the discoveris?

you are not getting it... Philosophy preceded science.... The pattern of truth seeking of philosophy and science are entirely difference.... Philo sophia.... Love of wisdom aim to seek truth through critical thinking without any particular standard or method... It can be from idea.,observation and taught experiment while scienctific method is entirely base on empirical or measurable evidence.... Philosophy can be study alongside science..... Philosophy can contribute to science discovery...

purem:
Bro are u sure u understand dis text u'r quoting?

Ever heard of philosophy of science?

If not for science would history have evidence?

philosophy and science can be treated separately...... Philosophy do not follow scientific pattern or scientific method of evaluation.... Philosophy precced science... Science use to be called natural philosophy but it branch off making main philosophy an entire independent dicipline on its own... Philosophy is all about intellectual taught and rigorous thinking... Philosopher are not scientists though some scientist may take interest in philosophy... But they are actually two different fied... Science isn't the only tools to use to validate history....

purem:
(7) Learn to see and come to conclusions about the world through a logical lens, rather than through faith. The Scientific Method is universally accepted as the best way to understand the world

what about philosophical evidence or historical evidence. .....

adepeter2027:
I can also agree with you on the listed states above.

I knew sokoto, kebbi and zamfara can never make that list.

BTW, borno of all state making that list?

jf you want to see atheist in the north go to jos....

purem:
So hopefullandlord your arrogance to religion has make you a pagan not an atheist

by your definition.... An arrogance to religion will make you a pagan? How do you conclude ?

purem:
So hopefullandlord your arrogance to religion has make you a pagan not an atheist

by your definition.... An arrogance to religion will make you a pagan? How do you conclude ?

ScienceWatch:
That is a brilliant idea. I know how Atheists use psychological DENIAL:
This mechanism is very simple: the agnostic/atheist/deist simply denies reality and does so with intensity and persistence.

There are Atheists who are told by doctors daily that they have a terminal illness. They hear and see many people have been miraculously healed. The Atheists way of coping is to deny that it could be true. They intensely and persistently deny that God could exist to provide such awesome help that is above the abilities of their Scientific gods. They block out the possibility and fight it with all their might.

Even if they hear a thousand people of different parts of the world explaining and demonstrating the same experience, Atheists say they wont believe something if they did not experience it. Yet they believe in all the solar systems, an earth that is billions of yrs old which they have never experienced

there is one thing about you.... You have a full confidence.... But the way you pass your message is a bit harsh...i do read your post I found it interesting...

OliviaPope:
That's not a recent thread and no, i'm not a muslim. That story is as fake as a talking donkey. It was just a trick to get these hot blooded theists to play the "my god is better than your god" game (and see if any christian would try to convince me i'd still be barbecued anyway ) they didn't disappoint seeing as they wánked all over the thread.



I think its primitive and ignorant to believe in a concept that's completely based on assumptions that cannot be proven and have no credible evidence to support its claims, especially when a better explanation with lots of verifiable evidence exists. Its a deliberate glorification of stupidity to ignore compelling evidence that validates evolution, but continue to believe ancient folktales which lack any evidence whatsoever.

Creationist arguments only try to poke holes in the evolution theory and fill them up with god, they never try to provide answers, god did it is just an easy way out of a complicated question for them. Attempting to introduce an external, unjustifiable variable into the picture to put a stop to further quest for answers is a declaration of defeat to further intellectual challenge, not an explanation...

ooh you also trick me into beliving you are muslim..


It is wrong for you to conclude that religion belive is base an assumption. There is different between belive and assumotion because assumptions are mostly based on instinct without any further information gathered Whereas belief can have proof to testify it with faith.... In belive there is concreteness of confidence..

I welcome the evidence of evolutionist on the subject matter. And likewise that of creationist. creationists may not provide a convincing truth about it.... But they do not also fail to correct evolutionists where they need to cover or where their evidence isn't concrete.... At this junction both of them can work together...


There was an articule I read online that statescientists only accept the evolution theory not because it agree with science but its disagree with church...

OliviaPope:
of course. since we're yet to fully understand it, why don't we fill up the gaps with god

I check on your recent thread it seems you are a Muslim... What is your stand on this topic either on islam perspective or your own rational taught.

AgentOfAllah:
You're wrong! Logic is a tool merely used to formulate conclusions about a set of predefined premises. If the premise is objectionable, then logic can never provide the truth. Science on the other hand, seeks to establish empirical premises upon which logic can rely to come to truthful conclusions. Logic can be applied to any premise. The question is, how reliable is that premise?

You can if the premises prove questionable.

This claim is objectively false! Religion is hopelessly dependent on blind faith, which is the direct antithesis of critical thinking.

But attributing complexity to god is not a logical argument, it is resignation. Water is transparent, hence does not take its colour from anything. It can however, sometimes scatter, reflect or transmit light from other things around which may give the apparition of colour. But make no mistake, water has no colour! Hence, whatever your friend's logic is, it is wrong.




My last paragraph was just to demonstrate that common ancestry is not the same as common designer.

I differ with you..... your conclusion can only be reliable if there is empirical evidence that has proven the premises not to be true but setting aside subjective and physical evidence which is the premises we have at hand logic can be used to explain the truth...

logic is a taught experiment that use the mind to recognize the processes of , the cause and effect of any idea to verify truth. Logic do not only explain truth it also validate it.....it is the duty of science to work with idea ,prediction of data or any testable theory likewise it is the duty of logic to occasionally tell science to adjust its perspective....

Taught experiment is part of work design for any good scientists to carry out research....

Therefore the logics of design creature can't be thrown into garbage because science has not been able to prove the premises to be false.... Yes is questionable just like the topic at hand... evolution theory....

Most religion can logically validate the truthfulness of their believe ...religion base their belive with knowledge ,faith and confidence... To say is a blind base will be wrong


Design complexity isn't only logical it also has a science Base.. Design arguments are empirical arguments for the existence of God. These arguments do not only show the complexity in the design it also shows the goals and purpose of the design..

What about sky? Will you not say the same thing about sky? Remember sky isn't Always blue...

Sibe007:
Thanks for your contribution

you are welcome

It is illogical to force anybody into a believe system... Be you Christian, Islam , pagan , Athiest or whatsoever... The most logical thing to do is to share opinion to others not on why you think it is better but why you think it is good for them as a person....


Am a pagan not because I see it better than any form of believe but it make perfect sense to me because it celiberate my culture .honour the natural energy like flower, water , metals and it also honour my departed ancestor ... So if you love earth and you want to preserve it ..paganism may be good for you because it is nature oriented...

I will end it with a Ghanaian proverb....which says a man who lost his culture is like a tree without Root...

Martinez19:
.

she is cute... Who is she..

Martinez19:
Smh. Being the best doesn't guarantee that you will pass, fine. But when I know the future, what's the need of test?

so that you can fit in