₦airaland Forum

manmustwac:
Thats a good statement when u look at it from an agnostic point of view but then the ball is in the court of the theist to prove what he believes.

The atheist believes there is no God - it is also in his courts to prove what he believes.

How do expect the athiest to disprove what cannot be proven?

Excuse me? Why has the atheist been shouting what he knows cannot be proven?

Deep Sight:
Viaro -

My driver has had a long hard day and i don't want to keep him waiting downstairs any longer so i have to leave the office now.

No problem, hurry along.

I will respond in detail later. But let me say just one thing -

What is this you are bandying about Arius believing that Christ was "perfect God"? ? ?

Was I the one who first mentioned the 'Arian Heresy' in this thread? I just wanted to cut to the chase and save you swallowing a rhino, that's all.

The same Arius referred to by wikipedia here - ?

Quote from wikipedia -

The early history of the controversy must be pieced together from about 35 documents found in various sources. The historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial under the bishop Achillas of Alexandria, when he made the following syllogism: he said, "If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing".

I didn't quote from Wikipedia for you - go back and see my source (Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, cited by Edward Peters in Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980).

But even if you want to hang your neck on Wikipedia, no worries - Wiki carries that quote from Edward Peter's ~~
[list]

Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that [size=14pt]the Son[/size] is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; [size=14pt]and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has[/size] [size=14pt]subsisted before time and before ages[/size] [size=14pt]as perfect God[/size], only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.

—Peters , Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

[/list]

Did you miss all that, son of OOI??

Who in history has ever perceived "Perfect God" as having a beginnning - by reason of having been "bgotten"? ? ? ?

Only the illiterate madman called Arius.

fyneguy:
lol


Viaro,

I can see you like wahala so much.

I told you those words are semantics and asked for further explanations, if any. You were waiting for me to play your role for you.

I didn't ask you to play any role for me as I'm quite capable of handling my stuff, thank you. You have not answered roll call for yourself at any point other than shouting 'semantics, semantics' and doing nothing. Bro, I wahala for you.

Anyway, Deity/divinity is what makes God, God, to you. Ok!

When you asked this question: "Is it His Immortality that makes him a Deity?"
My reply was TRANSCENDENCE and PRETERNATURALITY.
Why did you deliberately miss out those if it was not that you're out to play games, bro?

Having His divine nature and being expressions of His glory is what makes us Gods on earth.

That's what you tell yourself so you can sleep better in the afternoon. No worries.
It just seems you're excusing the very fact that WOF teachers have declared themselves to be 'Divinity' so you can talk of 'expressions of His glory'. There are many things in creation that are expressions of God's glory without claiming they are Divinity - so what you have said is just not bearing any substance.

Enjoy.

Please allow me borrow a quote from yours:

Enigma:
What about all the other things that have been pointed out ----- which one have you gone back to check with the Bible; even if more errors by Hinn, Kenyon & Hagin are pointed out, will you not just return in robot-mode repeating pre-programmed jargon in defence of heresy.

@Joagbaje, I quoted that ^^ for you just to make the point that you seriously need to address the previous issues that have been highlighted in the examples cited from WOF teachers. Even I am beginning to tire from these 'robot-mode repeating pre-programmed jargon' that some of us read in your defence of WOF doctrines. (thanks to nuella though, I really appreciate her frank answers).

^^^ Goodness lawd!! If I knew you were this funny!! Every single line!!

Krayola:
Why not just worship Lionel Messi? His last name is two letters short of "Messiah" and he has shown that he can do the impossible.

Oh gee me a break! Can you provide "empirical evidence" that Messi is two letters short of Messiah?


Sad that this thread has degenrated to such laughable terminus. Always happens. . always.

Deep Sight: Quite simply the reason that the controversy was so important was the fact that there was a lot within scripture to suggest that Christ perhaps was not to be equated with God and things had reached a head such that it became compelling for the Church to take a stand one way or the other on the hydra-headed monster that the issue that become.

Okay, better now that you have attempted to provide your own view.

Just try and understand that the people you discuss with are not oblivious of some of things you think you have to your advantage. This was why I often tease you with such lines as that you might think you had anything news-worthy, because all these matters are not new to us. Rather than bore readers with them, I chose to not emphasize that aspect which forms your most important concern, although I noted it in my replies by mentioning "Arius' doubts about Christ's Deity".

Such should have given you the hint that I was well aware that whatever you may mention specifically would not be new to me, back or front of the core of my summary that "the Arian Heresy had no effect on prophetic writings", even though the man Arius himself had drawn selectively from "within scripture" to formulate his heresies.

The point was that I was not given to petty details as if they were the most essential point - for the more essential issue was one on the question of whether the Deity of Christ rested on a convening of the Nicene Council. If the petty details such as you wanted to highlight were to be made the main issue, I would be prone to your sensationalism and sentimentalism of focusing on the peripherals. But no, I didn't do that - instead, I chose to narrow it down to the grand point in Arius' unequivocal affirmation of the deity of Christ nonetheless (as having "subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God". When I sum down things that way, I believe the essential points are already touched so you don't come back reharshing them - which was why I said; "please don't amuse me with your fundamentalism on this issue".

In all Arius' campaigns against the Deity of Christ, have you asked yourself why he would yet affirm that the Son of God had "subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God"?? What would Arius himself had seen from "within Scripture" to make that affirmation about Christ? This is the essential point, and not the peripherals you hanging unto.

In case you do not recognise it what this basically implies is that the deity of Christ was neither a certainty nor taken for granted – if it were, there would have been no reason to take the “controversy” with any degree of seriousness.

I do not take Arius with any grain of seriousness anyways, so what's the biggy?

Now I am going to introduce to you one fact which I do not know if you are aware of: that pro-trinitarian verses were actually deliberately inserted into scripture where they previously were not in the original texts.

One example of this is 1 John 5 v 7 –

The King James Version states -

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

These words did not exist AT ALL in the original scripture! The discovery of older manuscripts has shown it to be a deliberate and later insertion!

Thus modern bible versions WITHOUT EXCEPTION have REMOVED these words!

What does this tell you?

It tells me nothing that favours your and Arius' campaigns against the Deity of Christ. I am well aware of that issue over 1 John 5:7, and perhaps this is the first time I would have quoted it on Nairaland - because those opposed to the Deity of Christ chance upon such a verse for their campaigns. But again I ask: have you asked yourself why Arius would yet affirm that the Son of God had "subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God"?? Even if we remove 1 John 5:7 from the equation, does that yet affect Arius' affirmation of Christ as "perfect God?"

You see, you started out making so much noise about Arius and the Nicene Council, blah-blah. . . but in order to cut to the chase, I simply narrowed it down for you by going directly to the sum of it all: "the Arian Heresy had no effect on prophetic writings" - which would help sort through the issue quickly for you, without or without 1 John 5:17. I wonder if you have studied the prophecies of the OT about the deity of the Messiah for yourself?

That people throughout History have been so determined to manipulate scripture that outright additions have been made to scripture in a bid to foist authority for the paganistic doctrine of the Trinity.

But what then do you say about even Arius affirmation that Christ was PERFECT GOD before age and before time? Dude, wake up from your fusty pyjamas and see what's the issue here: you presented Arius' controversy that predicated the Nicene Council - no walaha. You jump from that to 1 John 5:17 - no walaha. In all these things, even the shots you called forth come down to one thing: the Son of God is affirmed to be 'perfect God' before time and before ages - and that by the man who's at the center of your own objections? Hahaha. . . you're such a laugh!

The truth is that if there was already sufficient authority within the bible for the Trinity – THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED FOR ANYBODY TO MAKE THAT DELIBERATE AND FRAUDULENT INSERTION. In this context you can appreciate the questions I put to you.

There was enough authority within the Bible for Arius to have affirmed Christ is perfect God. Did you miss that?

Thus you need to appreciate that such manipulations are evidence of the fact that not everything handed down by the Church can be relied upon: and it remains an incontestable fact that whatever was resolved at Nicea and subsequent Councils is what the Church would have accepted as standard doctrine.

Like I said, the Deity of Christ was not birthed at the Nicene Council, and even Arius himself affirmed that the Son of God was PERFECT GOD. You can turn and twist on this till you stir Arius from his grave, it won't change that very fact.

Whatever the Church accepted as standard doctrine is what the branches of the Church that later sprang out also imbibed as the supposed correct interpretation of scripture regarding the matter of the Deity of Christ.

Who forced Arius to affirmed that Christ was "perfect God" before time and before ages? Who forced that upon him?

So think again brother, and address the issues please!

I did. Now, if you don't mind taking your fundamentalism off the charts. . . looks like you've remained at #1 on the fundies charts on Nairaland for long enough.

Deep Sight:
I would like to presume in your favour that rather than being dishonest, you perhaps are simply not seeing things from the particular perspective I had in mind.

No worries - just make yoursef clear if you may.

I am fairly certain that you did not hear me state at any point in time that the Arian Controversy had anything to do with “prophetic writings” or that the issue of the deity of Christ arose during the time of Arius? ? ? Please do follow your own advise and listen to what I am saying and not what I am not saying.

I follow my advice well enough, but you're too full of yourself to the point of being too noisy and airy. You posed your question in connection with the Scriptures, did you not?

Deep Sight: For if indeed accepted scripture was clear on the deity of Christ, then what was the source of the Arian Heresy?

. . .and the "prophetic writings" are also part of the "accepted scriptures". So what noise are you on about? If you don't mean to say something, then don't say it - or be clear even when you must be noisy to the point of irrelevance.

What I stated was clear:

If the Council of Nicea had denounced the pagan trinity doctrine, you would be here tremulously and passionately arguing against the trinity

Why are you now acting like a most disingenuous fellow in addition to being a fundamentalist?

DeepSight, I'm weary now of your tendency to be su[color=Black]ch an id[/color]iot. My response of the part which you first quoted was directly addressing where you mentioned "accepted scriptures", so why come here pretending to have said something completely different from what I had replied in yours?? As regards the first part of my reply which you quoted, this was what happened:
[list](a)

Deep Sight: For if indeed accepted scripture was clear on the deity of Christ, then what was the source of the Arian Heresy?

(b)

viaro: You mean. . . you. . you, of all people, are so completely confused about this? To be sure, the Arian Heresy had no effect on prophetic writings; nor was it during the time of Arius in the 3rd to 4th century that Christians knew about and affirmed the Deity of Christ. Arius' doubts about Christ's Deity does not therefore mean that prior to the 3rd century Christians had no clue about the Deity of God's Son!

[/list]
That response followed logically as above in post #73; and the part you quoted and now claiming to have said something else was addressed even earlier in my post at #71 - what game are you playing here in quoting things out of their sequence and accusing me of being dishonest?

It is a source of irritation that I find myself consistently having to break down grammar for you. Moreso that I know very well that understanding of language should not be a problem for you except that you deliberately make it so,

Get lost with your professional duplicity and championing your poor readership. If you paid any attention to what I said, you would not be returning with such arrant nonsense about breaking grammar to impress yourself! This was the sa[color=Black]me stu[/color]pidity you exhibited in MyJoe's thread about non-essentials and only ended up displaying your shallowness.

The statement of mine above simply means –

- - -> - - -> That modern Christian doctrine regarding this matter has been influenced by the decisions taken at that gathering

- Which is an incontestable and obvious fact.

Please stop repeating yourself as if you didn't see I already addressed that question. Before the Nicene Council, Christians affirmed the Deity of Christ - and that doctrine was not birthed at that Council. Look for another excuse when you run out of steam; I already made the observation that fundamentalists are strangers to reason, regardless how many times plain issues are set before them.

I did ask you what the source of the controversy was and why it was so important at the time. Rather than address the simple question you were busy calling me names: stating that I am a dunce, etc as is your wont. I feel that it has become rather sickening the extent to which you rabidly desire to fling vulgarities and insults my way at anything that I say – be it on a secular or objective matter of any kind.

I call you Nairaland's most illiterate braincell (euphemistically preferable to 'dunce') because you keep repeating the same issue that has been dealt with, regardless how many times it is pointed out to you. Now again, your braincell is at work with the same illiteracy claiming that I did not address your query. If you wanted to discuss, there are far more intelligent ways to do so without trying to wave the victim's card and pretending your enquiries have not been answered. Please pack yourself one corner and let's do better things.

^^mazaje dude, viaro's doing good. Missed you around for a while, what's gwan? Be swell with good stuff.

fyneguy:
Heheheheheehe. You are unable to define what the quality is.

I did - you wanted to console yourself by deliberately missing it.
You could try defining it for yourself if you're not satisfied with mine.

All you have said is that ''Only God has this quality called Deity''

I'm sure I said much more than that and also broke it down for you, no?

That did not define Deity!

That's okay; so please help me define Deity.
When you're done, please also help me define Divinity.

Tell us what Deity/Divinity is all about!

When you define both Deity and Divinity, I shall then tell you what either is all about.

You have only convinced yourself that only HE has this quality, which you dont even understand or are unable to define.

If you're convinced that others have this quality, please show us. If you cannot show, you will be such a laugh.

Let me help you: Is it His Immortality that makes him a Deity?  Is it the fact that He is the Alpha and Omega? Is it the fact that only Him is worship-worthy? Think about these things

Thanks for the 'help', but did you never read of TRANSCENDENCE and PRETERNATURALITY in what I said?

It seems you were here to play games and be dodgy from the onset; which is no wonder, since it was set up for "non-WOF" believers.  Since WOF teachers are claiming divinity for themselves, you only managed thus far to spin and twist and say nothing at all on these things, no?

Let me help you: the WOF doctrine of "i-am-God" is a heresy. Period. You can define and undefine that whichever way you choose and run to another thread, it matters little from what we already know about the WOF movement.

toneyb:
No, but no body has ever shown me empirical evidence for the existence of God and the supernatural even when I was a theist. All the "evidence" that were presented to me were stories about god and the supernatural and not empirical evidence. Once i was provided with evidence to show that those stories  that were provided to me were false, I accepted and moved on.

That's okay. I would say that from your anecdotal narration, none of what you were shown serves as 'empirical evidence' for the non-existence of God and the supernatural. Perhaps, the first thing you may need to sort is what you mean by 'empirical evidence', and maybe afterwards you may understand why your narration is quite faulty and does not serve the goal of what 'evidence' you're looking for. Could you do that?

What anecdotal claim exactly? I was just trying to point out to you that I am not as close minded as you think. I have changed my mind based on the evidence and i can change my mind base on counter evidence too. Thats the point i was trying to make.

Let's just say that on the personal level, I consider what you have narrated as anecdotal; that does not mean I saw you as one closed-minded chap, not at all.

I answered your question. Hinduism, Scientology and Islam are all believes, why dwell only on alien abduction .

You didn't answer my question; and it was not I who mentioned alien abduction in the first place. I don't see how that was helpful in your remarks when you should have noted that alien abduction is not a belief system.

I know that there are atheist that believe in spiritualism. I have friends that are atheist but believe in some kind of spiritualism. How does their belief in spirituality give credence to spirituality? Does the belief of Scientologist give credence to Scientology?

Uh, dude, read my lips: 'spirits'. I didn't ask you for spiritualism or spiritism.

We can discuss both, that is if you will agree to discuss it on a simple level that any body can understand.

I'm game - but my discussion will be purely philosophical (I said so earlier). It is of very little consequences to me if some of our readers may find philosophy not quite to their flavour.

Not really, there are so many that do .

Lol, okay - I won't say nada on that.

fyneguy:
What is the quality possessed by God alone in His (those semantics above ) . Be specific sir

The quality is Deity/Divinity.

You asked me to define 'Deity/Divinity' - and my definition states that:

~ 'Deity/Divinity' is the quality which God alone possesses

~ because God alone possesses the quality of (Deity/Divinity)

~ it (that quality) sets Him apart in transcendence and preternaturality

~ and that ^^ distinguishes Him from every other thing in existence.

That's breaking it down for you. Please come back and ask viaro to define every word I've typed in this reply (by the time you read to the end, there would be about 120 words by individual count).


You guys are just here to play games, no? You don't know what sets God apart from all other things in existence, no? Please just amuse me.

Joagbaje:
@ viaro

If you really read Benniny Hinn and Kenyon books as you claim, I will like you to honestly say what it was they taught that change your perception.
thanks

I shall do so in due course.

toneyb:
Sorry bro, I apologize, I should have posted a caveat and caution before I posted the vid, Some salient points were raised in the vids, that thought explained what you asked me. I wasn't trying to cheat per-say.

Please accept my unreserved apology - I should not have been careless the way I addressed you with the 'cheat' there - I actually meant the guy in the vid was trying to gull his audience by violating the very first principle of the Philosophy of Mind. Not that it has absolutely nothing worthy to appreciate - it does; but it yet does not stand as conclusive evidence for reality, which was my point. I apologise again and withdraw my unfair accusation.

I shouldn't have posted the video since it goes into the philosophical line before going into the line i wanted it to go. It was silly of me to expect you not to look at it from that perspective.

No, it was not silly of you. We make mistakes, and I would have made the same mistake if it was the other way round and I missed noting that you had asked specifically about "philosophical underpinnings". I saw that vid (and several others by the same QualiaSoup that are good) - and I thought you might reach for that, which was why I anticipated you in carefully asking for anything with "philosophical underpinnings". Sorry about that.

Please vairo, can you show me that the soul is a part of a living being? Where does the soul reside in living beings? Do animals have souls?

Yes, animals do have souls, I believe; but it is not a physicalist fundamental principle. I think I made that point clear several times.

Vairo are you saying things that I did not say again? . Please re-read my previous post again.

I'm sorry if I got you wrong. Okay, let me request simply: could you provide me with a peer review making any such "conclusive evidence" asserting that the brain controls our total consciousness? If that is still missing your point, please put me right.

toneyb:
No, its your assumptions that are false. I was a theist and when I was provided with evidence to show that my beleifs were false. I accepted. Provide empirical evidence to show that there is a god that exists on its own independent of human culture, stories, societal acceptance and influence as mazaje loves putting it and I will believe and accept.

Were the things you were shown 'empirical evidence' for the non-existence of God and the supernatural? Of course, your personal beliefs were subjective and could anyday be proven false; such would not therefore mean that that is conclusive evidence for the non-existence of God and the supernatural. I'm sorry to note that I cannot take your anecdotal claim as meaningful here, because there are many atheists who have become theistic believers independent of the atheistic cultures that were part of their experiences, did you ever think about that? Such things had nothing to do with whatever any society accepted or not, and your preference to not believe is just that: your choice - and it has nothing to do with 'empiricism'.

So what if there are atheist that believe in spirits? Does that make their beliefs true? There are people that belief in alien abduction all over the place. People believe in Scientology, Hinduism, Islam, flat earth. Does that make their beliefs true?

I asked you to answer me a simple question - was that hard?  
I wasn't asking you to split hairs over Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists, or flat earthers - my focus was specifically atheists who believe in spirits! Things that have to do with alien abduction have nothing to do with anyone's worldview in so far as alien abduction is not a belief system! You atheists make me laugh when you throw tantrums in the way you appeal to fallacies in your arguments.

Your evidence that God exists on His own is what?

Creation and Cosmology. Choose your poison and let's discuss philosophically., if you may.

Actually I am not interested in philosophical rigmarole.

That's okay - atheists are never able to handle philosophy anyways.

toneyb:
Actually I am not interested in any philosophical mumbo jumbo. Philosophy as I have come to understand it is NOTHING other than opinions and counter opinions. I am more interested in empirical conclusions in matters like this and he has more leg to stand on.

That's okay with me. You knew you were not interested in philosophy (which was specifically what I asked for), and you are the same fellow to have posted a vid trying to gull the public with 'dualism in philosophy'? I wonder why you atheists are very scared of this thing called 'philosophy', though. Bro, if you were not comfy with what I specifically asked for, why try to cheat with that vid? I'd say next time that you carefully check and weigh your atheistic assertions before trying to blow smoke in our eyes about "conclusive evidence" about realities.

I will love to see them.

In due course.

I was very careful to elaborate and explain what I mean by the mind so that we do not get into a broad argument, that keeps us moving in circles.

While I appreciated your elborations, it was narrow - that was my point, unless you're saying that your own limited elaborations should be taken as the totality of all that can be known about mind and consciousness. Remember: if it was a simply case of chatting about these things, we would long have been done - but when you make very broad assertions about "conclusive evidence", someone would just have to call you up on that!

I am not interested in endless philosophical arguments that lead no where at all. The brain exists and there is empirical and objective evidence to show that it exists and is the what controls our feelings, Judgment, memory etc. Its existence does not depend on philosophical arguments and counter arguments. Its existence and how it operates is self evident. Does the soul exists? If it does then there should be empirical evidence that shows that it exists. Its existence does NOT need to rely on endless philosophical arguments that have no empirical evidence at all.

I'm not here to force you into philosophical discussions - but next time to be so quick to post a vid about dualist philosophy as your answer for 'conclusive evidence' when you're not quite prepared to stand up for anything philosophical. Atheists who make very careless assertions about realities with such finality in their tone should be smarted up for what they brazenly claim.

There are other parts of a living been that are non material, Our feelings, thoughts, decisions, etc are all non material are these things what you mean by the soul?

No. I was not talking about abstract qualities of human experiences, for the soul if not an experience. Our feelings, thoughts, decisions, etc. are not 'part of' a living being, in so far that they are experience. However, I said simply that the soul is a part of a living being because it does not occur as a sponteneous experience of the brain such as feelings, thoughts, decisions, etc.

There is conclusive evidence to show that the brain controls our consciousness  the way i defined it.

Please let us see the reviews asserting such, thanks.

fyneguy:
Viaro,

By the way, you are almost derailing this thread. We can talk deity-ish on another thread.

Nope, please don't accuse me. I am not derailing anything. You raised an issue about what faith cannot do - and I answered with one example. How is that a derailment?

Second, you opined that you wanted to open this thread for "non-WOF believers", and I urged you to do so from the other thread. Since I am one of the 'non-WOF believers', that is why I came here to discuss what you felt you could not discuss in that thread. If you want me to leave so you can turn this into another WOF thread, let me know and I shall oblige presently.

Please answer the questions I posed, seriatim.

Thanks for your co-operation

I will do so again, even though I already gave an answer to your question. When you read my definition, please don't accuse me of derailing anything, or better still explain how I was doing so - and I shall refrain or adjust. The thread was not about 'Faith' for believers, but specifically for "non-WOF believers" - am I missing something?


Now again to answer your question:

fyneguy:
Define Deity/Divinity and I'll tell you if I am ''your definition''

1. Deity/Divinity: the quality possessed by God alone in His transcendence and preternaturality that distinguishes Him from every other thing in existence.

That will do for now and encapsulates what I have been trying to point out. Will expatiate if need be.

toneyb:
This is false because the theist does NOT have ANY empirical evidence that any god exists at all, if he did he would have provided it long time ago and the atheist will believe.

That bold part is false - the atheist is committed to atheism and will not believe anything he or she is shown that contradicts his worldview. Please stop peddling this idea that 'the atheist will believe', that's a crude joke to play on yourself.

Actually things that are self evident do not require belief.

Why do you have atheists who believe in spirits? Please answer me that one.

If you want people to believe that which you believe exists but does not, you will have to keep pushing that thing into the realm of the unknown.

If you want people to believe that which you believe does not exist but does, you will have to keep pushing that thing into the realms of denials.

So that you will not be forced to provide empirical evidence for it.

So that you will not be forced to explain it within the matrix of atheism.

That is what most of you guys are doing here. Does god exist point to it and show how and where it exist, else don't expect any body to take your special pleadings about the god you imagine exits seriously.

If you're willing to discuss philosophically about the metaphysics of non-physicalist realities, please let us know - but be willing to demonstrate that you are philosophically sound to do so.

fyneguy:
Define Deity and I'll tell you if I am or not (Remember semantics has nothing on me )

I'm not using semantics - I already noted what I mean by deity (even divinity). Choose your poison and answer the question, if you may.

^^ I would rather it like this. . .

~ the atheists will evidentially not have empirically discovered themselves.

ukotmi:
Please follow the rules set by fyneguy. post your response to the issues he raised.

Did fyneguy not raise an issue that I responded to?

Seun:
Are we still talking about military killing here?

^^

toneyb:
This is quite true. Discussions like these are in the domain of philosophy.

Cool.

I don't know, but I thought matter can neither be created or destroyed?

That is in terms of a 'closed system', not necessarily in questions of origins science.

If I may ask how did god create matter out of nothing using words?

I don't know - if I did, I would not be asking you about how matter came into existence on its own, would I?

toneyb:
Viaro my man, How far?

I'm cool, thanks.

The guy's video is very elaborate in my opinion, I did not see you try to rebut any of the things he said instead you went along with your usual approach you fired on with along the usual route of accusing him of violating the basics of the philosophy of science and labeled his methodology a reductionist approach. Since i am not the creator of the video i will just let is pass. If you could make a video that addresses the substance of he has said and your concerns, I will very gladly pass it along to him.(I am a great fan of his and we do keep in touch sometimes).

Did you pay attention to the enquiry I posed? I had stated particularly: "I'm very interested in the philosophical underpinnings behind the conclusions you have reached to make such assertions", not so? And it was based on that same philosophical approcah that I posted my reply.

To be sure, that vid is an elaborate crap if we have to present it as "conclusive evidence" for reality. What you expected me to do was take every line he presented and then argue on endlessly, no?  I'm sorry to disappoint you; but if you were to present that in any solid academic institution of philosophy, you would fail the first class, I guarantee you that!

What did you actually try to counter in the fact that science is not about a reductionist approach but a holistic one? Why did he cleverly evade other dualist philosophies, toneyb? To reassure you, I had seen that vid long before now (it was one of those I viewed when researching for a paper on cosmology and came across Krauss' talk which I have also reviewed on this forum). I also here gave you an example of why philosophers of mind are not goons when it comes to philosophy of mind - and that link I gave about 'predicate dualism' is Philosophy resource at Stanford University.

If you have anything to say that is against the holistic approach for researches about realities of our world, please share the same. That is where that vid completely collapses, and he was clear from the onset that he was adopting the reductionist approach where "only one" fundamental reality is required. Toneyb, that is an attempt to cheat the gullible reader - and we know that any research for a "full description" of the world will involve fundamentals that are "not reducible to physicalistic predicates". Can you tell me why he was violating that very point that all sound philosophers ALREADY know??

I have not seen the mind, but I know that the brain controls all the process we attribute to the mind like reasoning, thinking, feeling, will, perception, judgment etc. There is NO evidence to show that anything besides the brain controls any part of our mind. Do you have any evidence of anything controlling the human consciousness/mind beside the brain? When I refer to consciousness I am talking about the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual. Do you have any evidence to show that there is any other thing that controls it outside the brain?

Yes, I could point out some studies that are pointers to types of consciousness outside the brain. If you could be patient, I will sort out some sound resources for you, so that I don't give you just about anything that fills the gaps.

However, although your use of the term 'mind' is quite limiting, there is no reason why everything about our consciousness should be narrowed to the parameters you listed for the mind. That again is playing to the reductionist who averse objectivity but only seeks physicalist fundamentals. If we're going to look at some other kinds of realities that are indices of our consciousness (such as the soul), where would the physicalist reductionist approach stand in such researches? The reason I asked you about the mind is one such indications that the physicalist who has not seen the mind is unwilling to admit that there are dualisms in philoslophies of reality that are NOT physicalist - that is an incontestable fact.

No one has ever provided any evidence that humans have anything called the soul, By the way what do you mean by the soul? You will have to define and describe what you mean by the soul before we can move forward with this engagement about it. What is the soul?

The soul is basically the non-material part of a living being which is not physicalist. If need be, I could expound on that later on.

I will like to see the scientific peer reviewed paper that says that there is no conclusive evidence that says that the brain controls a persons consciousness, remember by consciousness, I mean the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual.

Yes, I was careful to note 'consciousness'. There is no "conclusive evidence" that the brain controls our entire consciousness - if you do have a peer reviewed paper that asserts that all our consciousness is controlled by the brain, it would be great to see it. As far as I know, I have not come across any such review that says that our entire consciousness is controlled by the brain.

toneyb:
I am also using the same bible and in it the god of the bible says he is the beginning and the end. These are not words i made up but words that are found inside the bible which you believe to be the words of your god in one way or the other. Beginning and the end denotes time.

God says He inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Does eternity denote 'time' as well?

@Joabgaje,

Your concerns are appreciated, and here is my reply:

Joagbaje:
@ viaro and Altheia , The anti faith websites you guys are visiting has clouded your mind from the truth. Those websites are Satanic, false brethren. How can someone be teaching against faith and authority of the believers.

I don't know if I've been visiting anti-faith or satanic websites; but if you care for 'truth', I would like to know if you're one of those who has been visiting the WOF websites teaching you that you're supposed to be deity: are you a deity, Joagbaje?

@Viaro and Aletheia :A word of advise, Your criticism of teachers of faith are based on those nonsence sites you're quoting from. Why don't you do an independent research yourself .

I have tried to do my own independent research and also tried to draw directly from the Bible in my comments on this thread. There are certain things which those WOF teachers don't want you to know; and that is what we would like to expose. This one is appetizer, main course will follow in due course! Patience, bro.

Have you read any Benny Hinn books or Kenyon? If you do, your perception will change. If you visit anti bible site and you've not read the bible, you may call Christians fools.

You're right: after reading a few of Benny Hinn's and Kenyon's books, my perception about them changed and I have never recovered from that! I used to respect them; but after reading directly from them, I was shamed to see them for the sham they are! That does not make me call any true Christian a 'fool' - I regard as foolish only those people who have eyes to see and will yet blind themselves to the heresies of these men.

nuella2:
No christian is deity like God to receive worship,praise and adoration and will never be in that class. And deities are also immortal which we have not yet achieved, until christ comes. When a christian say he is god he do not mean people should worship him like God almighty. But he is talking about the nature he has which is supernatural(his spirit been recreated after the image of God) that make him god, like the bible say, but not God almighty. Is a class that the christian belong to, which is superior to the natural man(non believer) because of the holy ghost that resides in him. But not deity in the sense like God almighty, to know all things and create maybe a new sun, NO. But it means we are sons of the most high. No christian will ever think of becoming God almighty that will mean he has the nature of the devil, who wanted to be like God almighty to recieve praise and adored.

@nuella2,
Thank you so much for your reply. Let me outline my answers:

1. I agree with you that no Christian is deity - that is the point I have been trying to highlight in this thread for those who have been going by the doctrines of WOF proponents and teachers, some of whom we have identified.

2. Since no Christian is a deity, it should be plain then that no Christian can 'create' anything or bring things into existence in just the same way that God brings creation into existence.

3. No Christian will thus think of himself or herself as deity as God is Deity; because to think of becoming like God exactly as He is ('Deity'), is tantamount 'having the nature of the devil', as you said (and I agree).

Consequently, I would like to point out again that these three features above are part of what identify those we have often referred to in examples of WOF teachers: Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Paul Crouch, etc, - they have declared that:

        ~~ they cannot be human

        ~~ they are God and divinity

        ~~ they can create just like God can create

        ~~ there is no difference at all between them and God

For others who might been agreeing with the doctrines taught by these WOF teachers and proponents, we ask you to be careful what you're buying into. Cheers.

toneyb:
Let me begin here, You are only saying that your god created the universe without providing any evidence to show that there is a god, that exists on its own. Does god exists? Point to it and show how it exists or that it exists on its own, pointing to the universe does NOT help your case at all.

Actually, it does - pointing to the Universe as evidence for a Creator helps the case for the existence of God.

Discussions like this are in the domain of philosophy, not naturalism. But for now, I would only say this: if you know of any science that shows how matter created all of existence on its own, please share.

Notice I have not concluded anything for 'God' in that request; rather, I have afforded you an opportunity to demonstrate the philosophical underpinnings of your own worldview but focusing on just one thing: matter.

I don't think that there's any gain in these kinds of discussions where people based their arguments on faulty logic. All these ideas about 'previous big crunch' etc etc are clevers ways of sounding dense (no offence) because more often than not they are dressed up with all sorts of cosmetic language of "it could be the result of" so-and-so. It sounds more like kids taking turns to guess wildly at some star-trek movie scences without saying anything workable and concrete. Such ideas of 'previous big cruch' do not say zilch about existence at all or how matter came into being in the first place! Even if the question of any Creator is left out of the equation, how does matter spring into existence entirely on its own?

Thanks, toneyb.

toneyb:

Please could you discuss the "conclusive evidence" that shows that nothing survives bodily death?

I think the discussion can be found in this video.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"[/flash]

I'm sorry, that vid is NOT any "conclusive evidence" but someone trying to be funny with what he does not understand nor has carefully studied. Did you notice how he cleverly dodges critical issues at the onset? Sample:

* 'Substance dualism is one of a number of different dualist philosophies,
but they won't be the focus of this video'

Why does he avoid that? Does he assume that 'substance mononism' (which requires only one 'fundamental reality' in order to be 'true') is therfore "conclusive evidence"? Oh please.

What has happened in that vid is simple: the gentleman has violated the basics of the philosophy of science (more specifically the philosophy of mind). Any genuine quest for "reality" requires a holistic approach rather than a reductionist one! Let me give you an example particularly in the area of the philosophy of mind with respect to another type of dualist philosophy:

[list]Predicate dualism is the theory that psychological or mentalistic predicates are (a) essential for a full description of the world and (b) are not reducible to physicalistic predicates.[/list]

If one is going to take seriously any philosophical approach to the study of "realities", such a researher should be willing to to avoid the reductionist approach where fundamental elements in such a research are reduced to "physicalist predicates" . To adopt the reductionist approach will not yield results for a "full description" of the realities of our world - and I'm afraid that is what has happened in the vid that you posted. Therefore, one cannot accept that as "conclusive evidence" for anything - that is a shame and will not score zilch in any journal of philosophy of mind.

I reckon that the real reason the author cleverly dodges critical philosophical underpinings is because those are issues that are the very core of the subject he sought to discuss. So for his own convenience, since he could not handle those grey areas that present serious problems to his narrow ideas, he quickly scuttles round them and proceeds to propound his own idealism. I'm sorry, toneyb, that kind of pretence is neither science nor philosophy - and such reductionist approach to studying reality is not what any informed thinker should present as "conclusive evidence" of anything, unless they simply want to be mischievous.

Sorry for making such a blanket statement and the use of the word "everything", Everything is really a big word to use. In context when i say everything I mean both voluntary actions and involuntary actions. As you know, the brain controls out thoughts, emotions, moral judgments, memory and other things like heart beat etc. That is what I meant by everything. By everything I mean our entire consciousness.

Thank you for correcting that use of 'everything'. However, I'm at odds with you maintaining that our brain controls our entire consciousness. without descending into long talks here, I leave you an ancillary question: have you ever seen the 'mind'? Yes, it's a reality no doubt, we agree on that; but have you ever seen the mind itself?

Actually i don't even believe or accept that the soul exists because no body has been able to show or provide any conclusive evidence that it does.

I understand; but I would say that no one has been able to provide conclusive evidence that the soul does not exist. Anyone who comes to the conclusion that he has evidence for the non-existence of the soul would have been able to arrive at a "conclusive evidence" of ALL realities in our known universe. That is not a stopper on the subject or enquiry; but I tend to think that philosophers of mind-science are today not making assertive statements about 'realities' for the simple reason that the present paradigm of scientific studies is holistic and reductionist approaches are no longer tenable for any conclusions about "realities". That does not mean there are no answers to some problems of realities, but rather that philosophers of science are seeking new ways of approaching such subjects than they have done in the past.

If the brain controls all our thoughts, emotions, moral judgments and our entire consciousness etc then which part of our consciousness survives bodily dead after the brain dies off completely? Lets assume that the soul exist, Are memories stored in the brain or the soul? Some people partially or completely lose their memory when their brain is injured. This implies that the brain stores memories, in which case how does your soul remember anything after brain-death?

Like I said above, there is no "conclusive evidence" for the idea that the brain controls our entire consciousness; so I would not rest anything on just the brain.

^^Strong answer there, aletheia.

Could I add some few to Joagbaje's rejoinder?

_________

@Joagbaje,

Thank you for the boldness to directly deal with my question - I appreciate that very much.

The reason why I specifically made the point of 'Deity' is to distinguish between the loose use of the term 'God' and the Biblical use of that same term ('God') for the One we worship. This is why Jeremiah 10:11 has been quoted several times, because only God in the sense of 'Deity' is said to have made the heavens and the earth and all things in them - so, "the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."

When you thus say:

Joagbaje:
Anyone who hails from God is a God,

. . are you meaning that human beings are therefore deities? If that is what you're implying, then there is just no difference between you and the pagans around the world. Why? Because Paul in Acts 17:28-29 uses the descriptives of "we are the offspring of God" to agree with Athenian poets who have said 'we are also his offspring' - yet, the same Paul had directly accused the Athenians of being "too superstitious" in verse 22.

Then again, Paul declares the 'God' he was preaching to them - "God that made the world and all things therein". . . does Jeremiah 10:11 come to mind again?

Bro, those who go about declaring that they are 'deities' will simply perish - that is the message of the prophet Jeremiah (ch. 10:11) and the Psalmist (Psa. 82:6-7).

This assertion of 'anyone who hails from God is a God' flies in the face of the fact that no man (believer or unbeliever) is ascribed with the attributes of divinity or Deity throughout Scripture - not even Adam. When you say "hails" from God, what do you mean, really? Adam was created by God, and so are other beings. So if by creation you are inferring that Adam was a god and therefore a deity, what is Satan called if not "the god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4)?? We know that Satan is not Deity - he did not create the heavens and the earth and all things in them; and that is why we ought to distinguish between God who is truly Deity and "them which by nature are no gods" (Galatians 4:8).

Enough said for now. In all the claims of "i-am-a-god", you are NOT a deity. Nada. Nix. Zilch.

nuella2:
Am i just a man? certainly another class of man.

^^ does that make you a deity?

Please, please and please, I would like a direct answer to that pivotal question. That is what is at the heart of WOF teachings today, no gainsaying it. With all the talk about 'i am god', why do WOF proponents stutter and shy away from giving a direct answer to that simple question?

When one goes through the assertions of WOF teachers, it does not take much digging to find that they have made reference to themselves as "divinity" - that there is no difference between them and divinity, or that they cannot be human.

Now when several folks begin to drink into that kind of teaching, what we 'non-WOFs' want to know is a direct answer to the simple question: are you a deity just as God is Deity? Please don't gamble that question away, because it is precisely what WOF teachers have acclaimed in their doctrines (eg., Kenneth Copeland, Paul Crouch, Creflo Dollar, Paula White, etc). These folks have not minced words when declaring these things. So why are you guys shying away from giving a simple answer for what you actually are declaring of yourselves?

Are you a deity just as God is Deity?

When you answer that question in all honesty, we discuss more. All bragado claims about being this and that and evading that question just amount to raising airy speech. Please guys, do us the fav of dealing directly with that simple enquiry. Thanks.

Hello toneyb,

Been quite a while. Howdy?

toneyb:
What part of the human consciousness survive bodily death? So far there is no evidence to show that any part of human consciousness survives bodily death. There is conclusive evidence to show that there is nothing that survives bodily death, once the brain(Which controls everything dies off).

Please could you discuss the "conclusive evidence" that shows that nothing survives bodily death?

Second, could you show that it is the brain that controls "everything"?

I'm very interested in the philosophical underpinnings behind the conclusions you have reached to amke such assertions.

Yet if the there is a soul that survives bodily death I think none of this would be necessary.

You don't know for sure if a soul survives bodily death; nor would you already draw the conclusions about what is 'necessary' without showing how you arrived at that conclusion.