₦airaland Forum

Mr_Anony: lol, I am not being disingenious, I am only trying to show you the logical problems with your question.
well anyway, since you say that your position is that God did not create abstract concepts such as numbers. My counter is that numbers cannot exist on their own without an object being described. You cannot even define what it is you are claiming that God cannot do.

Defensive lol again? I'm not accusing you of anything, yet.
Saying that without physical objects numbers, an abstract concept, do not exist is patently false. In any universe numbers MUST exist. Even in nothingness, void/null/0 exists by default. A 'God' shows up? Then the number 1 which had always existed with or without a god or any other physical thing now has some physical entity which can use it to describe something. 1 was not created by whatever physical thing is available. And, importantly, numbers are not subject to any other construct, including a god (again, note my usage of the word 'a', meaning 1, always existed).
1 exists, then 1 + 1 = 2 also exists. Gods have no power over mathematical logic. Gods have no power over rigorous logic. You can see where that is heading to.

Mr_Anony: The moment you ask whether God created numbers, you have refered to numbers as an object.

I love it when you go on these "the moment you ask" musings. No, I have not referred to numbers as a physical object. Where do I do that?

Mr_Anony: Assuming I answered yes, you would immediately start arguing about how numbers are not objects but are abstract qualifiers. On the other hand, If I had said no, you will immediately forget that numbers are abstract concepts and start treating the concept as an object.

You mind reading now? You became your god or something?

Mr_Anony: So my friend, I think it is time you put on your thinking cap and begin defining how the abstract concept of "numbers" qualifies as a thing.

Your work is still cut out out for you.

You seem to be lost. Omnipotent god that is above reason. You can switch 'math' and 'logic' (rigorous, objective) in this write up.
Enjoy...

Numbers do not qualify as physical 'things', they qualify as abstract 'things'. Just as "physical 'things'" can qualify as an abstract concept as well. With or without god, the concept of having a physical thing, even without having anything physical whatsoever in that universe, always existed.

Say you have the concept of a thing being 'round', if indeed you do come across a round thing then good and fine, you now have a physical round thing. Again, the concept always preceded it. These concepts adhere to certain rules, for instance a 2 dimensional object cannot be both round and square. These laws naturally exist and any god would be subject to them. If indeed a 2 dimensional round object did show up in reality, no matter what god does he cannot make it both round and square, the rules must apply.

Consider mathematics, and you now have a list of many, many things that our good lord cannot or can do. Just about EVERYTHING in this universe can be described in purely mathematical terms. Consider the amount of physical objects your computer translates into the abstract just by mixing 1's and 0's; virtual universes, predictive simulations being performed, etc etc. This is all accomplished using mathematical tools, translating reality to abstract to create virtual worlds. Using simulations performed in these abstract worlds that follow mathematical rules, you can predict many phenomena that are not even physically confirmed yet. Note how even certain physical objects must exist because mathematical laws predict them. This is the reason physics and mathematics are so closely connected. Reality has myriad objects in it, all following unbreakable mathematical laws.

Einstein does the math and says space bends, lo and behold years later when the appropriate tools to test nature had been devised we find that the math is true, space does indeed bend. Mathematical tools also refuted other theories as impossible. This is great example of physical reality showing that it has no choice but to follow mathematical rules. By extension, there are myriad laws God does not create, they exist with or without him. Mayhaps he has the tools to concretely create some objects, but in his being subject to logic there are a ridiculous amount of things it can or cannot do. And like I said initially, a huge chunk of both physical and abstract stuff it cannot have created, he'd had to have discovered them as they exist so long as the math says so. In fact, god did not create any abstract concepts, he'd had to have discovered them all. As for physical objects, once a root object is created, they in turn would have to follow mathematical rules which cannot be altered, and thus certain effects would exist by default. Create two physical objects? Then collisions must physically exist (the concept having existed already before the physical feat was accomplished), god has no say in the matter etc etc.

edited, and probably needs a lot more to reduce redundancy

Stalwert: Your name is Mr. UNIMPORTANT, keep whining about my post poo bag!

The bolded is the only part of any of your posts where you imply intelligence greater than a 5 year old's, and I think it was a fluke.

Kay 17: Some atheists are against homosexuality, while some support it. Neither is there a central creed in atheism to accept homosexuality or be one.

And taking atheism as a religion is deceptive

That's all there is to it
This isn't even a topic...

Mr_Anony: Interesting.



God created everything both seen and unseen. All I am saying is that the concept of numbers are not things. they are describers or attributes of things same as 'good'.
I still maintain that your questions are nonsense but since you want to play the game of silly semantics, why don't we start by you defining for me what "numbers" is and what "good" is.

You must not refer to the concept of numbers or goodness in your definition.

Or heck, let us play your game . . .


yes He did.


No He did not?

Please give your follow up answer to both.

Incredible. I'd rather assume you are being disingenuous. I claim god could not have created concepts, and you ask me not to use concepts in my answers.
Do tell, what do you think my claim is?

Lord_Reed: What about premonitions? Ever had any?

Non of those either, nothing strong. Even if I did, I'd probably chalk it up to some rational reason I'm consciously unaware of, even for unlikely situations.

^^
What is not mutually exclusive? We speak completely different languages. You don't do your thinking in english, abi? Seems some translation problems occur, similar to discussing with say potelemos. I'm guessing that's why I don't get you

This is my last post on these issues with you probably, as you've shown very little understanding of the topic.

Ihedinobi: I think this case is closed, don't you?

Not in any way, shape or form. I've already said why, if you can't grasp it then..

Ihedinobi: Please don't push me to go harvesting past posts. It's a real chore using my phone and if I have to do it, it might make upset me and then I might upset you

The question was whether there can be conflicting first causes, not whether there can be multiple first causes.

What do you care if I get upset? Never worry about that
My answer still stands for crying out loud, YES and NO. Present the scenario you want to use first cause in and we can then determine which usage is appropriate

Ihedinobi: If they're not contrary, then a query after reason is also a query after purpose. That is, they're interchangeable.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion? Blue is interchangeable with red?

Ihedinobi: lol...... Awesome. In the light of this discussion, you might as well ask whether God created itself. I'd like to watch you try to prove that that is a valid question to ask.

That is a valid question to ask!!! In fact, it's done all the time on this board, and the term 'self-existent' is thrown around. And it is similar to what I'm asking...

Ihedinobi: Wow Ok. I can work this still. You see the bolded? I pick it out as a sample of the mass of absurdity that post represents.

Let's say that I am an utterly arbitrary being. What would it mean to me to not be free to choose to do exactly as I please?

You see, in case you missed it, that post's aim was to show just some of the illogic you've been selling, just some.
NOT BEING FREE TO CHOOSE IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF NOT BEING ARBITRARY

Ihedinobi: How about your own words? I'd prefer them. I did follow the links and I see nothing in them that supports your question.

Really, first description on that page, the relevant one...
BASED ON RANDOM CHOICE
Note the word 'choice'

Ihedinobi: Well if what I say it cannot do is "to cannot do anything", am I wrong?

What is this double negative (of sorts) here for? It is not what you have been saying. What you have claimed is that a being that has no choice is being arbitrary. Any sane person would ask what have you been smoking.
What you are doing is more like saying it cannot do anything, then immediately claiming it does something.
We've not even explored the fact that while initially making the first choices, it must have had new thoughts, hence it never was omniscient...

Ihedinobi: lol......wiegraf, God could not have created God, whatever God is, ok? That's basic to reason and logic.

It's too much.
The whole point of this debate is to show you how illogical you are being, you know that? Astounding how one sided people see stuff. Logic applies itself subjectively?

Lord_Reed: How about deja vu's? What do you think of them?

Never really have any strong ones, except for certain dreams. I think they're biological in nature.

Mr_Anony: lol, you are beginning to sound as childish as macdaddy these days (even macdaddy is don dey grow small small).

You are still doing the same thing here. A number is an abstract used in describing entities it is not an entity by itself. You should have to tell us exactly what it means to create a number.

For instance If you ask: Did God create 4? you must tell us what it means to create 4. . . .or 4 of what?

Please do us all a favour and start asking intelligible questions

And you're becoming even more irrational. The questions you are desperately trying to avoid are childish? Is this the newest anonysm? As for logicboy, well, he can defend himself.

Not 4 or anything, stop it. Concepts like numbers, immaterial concepts, and let's consider foundational ones. God created everything, no? Are you saying he created only the physical, had nothing to do with concepts? Then 'good' existed without him? This is really simple...

Did god create numbers or not?

Ihedinobi: lol, dude, this is what they call "grasping at straws". I have proved that sentient or not, whatever one regards as first cause can rightly be called one's God.

You haven't, at all. Like I said, those descriptions do not just say sentient or not, they also say ultimate, supreme etc etc. They may solve sentience but they have other issues. Pick anyone and I'll show you how rather than trying to sidetrack the issue.

Ihedinobi: I'm not interested in what first cause is composed of in this discussion. My question is whether there can exist conflicting first causes. And you have said that there cannot. Do you want to change that stance now?

Change my stance? Why? It's still the same. You can label all the bits collectively as first cause, but depending on your usage, that could be (very) wrong, simple. For instance say you want to measure the time it takes you to get from your house to work, you'd use newtonian physics and you'd be fine. Say you wanted to measure the time it would take you to get to the centre of the galaxy with you moving at much higher speeds, using newtonian physics would be silly and produce highly inaccurate results. Mostly because newtonian physics doesn't really explain what is happening accurately, it's a crude approximation. The same applies when you use the term 'first cause' collectively, and for the purposes I assume you want to use the term for you will get highly inaccurate results.

Ihedinobi: Can you show that a query after reason is contrary to a query after purpose?

I didn't say contrary, I say not necessarily. And I've shown how already a few times. Btw, is it so difficult for you to grasp that inanimate objects cannot have a purpose?

Ihedinobi: I do not believe that you do not see that the above makes no sense wholly and in details.

Did god create everything?
Did god create numbers?

Ihedinobi: Perhaps you're willfully misunderstanding, perhaps you're not. A truly free will does not operate choices. It is totally arbitrary, that means it does perfectly as it pleases. Therefore, it does not choose. It only decrees.

This is, frankly, nonsense (and so is a lot of this post actually). It does perfectly as it pleases, therefore it does not choose. It does not choose the decree it intends to follow? It does not choose to do as it pleases? It does it without thinking, a being with free will that does not think? Wth are you on about? Or without making a choice, and you claim it has free will? What in the universe are you saying?

Ihedinobi: lol.... This is worse nonsense than ever, if that's possible. What is arbitrary?

See above. Switch arbitrary with whimsical, might help you get it. Or this
http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=arbitrary&o=0&l=dir
Note the word 'choice'.

Google as many descriptions as you please...
http://www.google.com/m?q=arbitrary&client=ms-opera-mini&channel=new

Ihedinobi: The law of non-contradiction. Ever heard of it? That's what I tried to exemplify.

Have you? You say a being can do anything, then immediately say it cannot do something. Again, wth

Ihedinobi: lol...... That happens when you stand on a bog.

If you say so. Your premises and understanding of the issues are poor though, so this is a bit of a waste of time. You need to think about what god did and did not create, and what he can and cannot do. As for the free will in particular.... Well

Is this confirmed

SCIENCE IS BEAUTIFUL!!!

Stalwert: Yeah I know your real name?

Tell us then, if you will good ser.

Ihedinobi: Yeeeeeah!!! Give it to him, twin bro, @Mr Anony. Gee, I'm so loving this!

You'll have your way with me when I'm buried. Even then I doubt that. As for now making up a sad excuse to not answer is rather pathetic. There's also....
But worry not, considering that neanderthal @vedax seems to know my real name, I am now worried that these may be the last days...

Saint paris: yes not every who serves somebody becomes sexuàlly intimate with the person. But correct me if am wrong is wine not prohibited on earth but permitted in your paradise?
*the number of women one could be married to is limited to 4 but when you get to paradise it exceeds 72 and above?
*so it's safe to say homosexualìty is Prohibited on earth but allow in heaven given the number of verses in your quran that defines this boys as 'handsome' 'pearls' etc.
And round them shall go boys of theirs as if they were hidden pearls. S. 52:24 Shakir
Round about them shall go youths never altering in age, With goblets and ewers and a cup of pure drink; S. 56:17-18 Shakir
And round about them shall go youths never altering in age; when you see them you will think them to be scattered pearls. S. 76:19 Shakir
We wonder, what will Muslims be doing with these young boys, hold hands and sing together? It is passages such as these that led some Muslims to argue that homosexuality and pederasty would be permitted in Paradise. For instance in his tasfir Abul-Ala Maari said that homosexuality will be permissible in paradise. He based this opinion on Suraal-Waqi‘a 56:17-23: "Round about them are male youths of freshness ... and there will be huris (‘beautiful companions with large and lustrous eyes, like pearls well-guarded’)" ...
"Abul-Ala said: ‘If wine is prohibited in this world and allowed in paradise, the same will happen with homosexuality ’ ( Risala al-ghufran by al-Maarri and Khawater Muslim fi al-mas’ala al-Jinsiyya by Muhammad Jalal Kishk)." ( True Guidance (Part 4), An Introduction to Quranic Studies [Light of Life, P.O. Box 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria], p. 122)
Even prophet Muhammad showed some gayish attitudes.
Muhammad use to invite young boys to see him wash his private parts:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Whenever Allah's Apostle went to answer the call of nature, I along with another boy used to accompany him with a tumbler full of water. (Hisham commented," So that he might wash his private parts with it ." ( Sahih Al-Bukhari , Volume 1, Book 4, Number 152

Other traditions state that Muhammad would actually allow young boys to suck his tongue and he would suck the tongue of others. For instance, in "Musnad Ahmad," Hadith number: 16245, Volume Title: "The Sayings of the Syrians," Chapter Title: "Hadith of Mu’awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan," we read:
Narrated by Hisham Ibn Kasim, narrated by Huraiz, narrated by Abdul Rahman Ibn Abu Awf Al Jarashy, and narrated by Mua’wiya who said,
"I saw the prophet – pbuh – sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali source
Muhammad also appeared nakèd before a man:
narrated by Aisha who said,
"Zaid Ibn Haritha came to Medina while the prophet – pbuh – was in my house. He (Zaid) came and knocked on the door so the prophet rose up and went towards him naked ,dragging his garment behind him. By Allah I had not seen the prophet naked before this or after it (in front of people). Then the prophet embraced Zaid and kissed him."

I mean I'm liberal and all but wth am I reading... What is this?!!?....

Lololol oh $deity....

The word hypocrisy might need some consideration, if true ie

Mr_Anony: I don't laugh in self-defence, I laugh when I find something amusing. Of course you are not attacking me, your question is just silly and it doesn't matter how many "valids" you put before it, they don't make the silliness go away.

you still have not explained exactly what you mean by "creating existing".

If you want us to play the game of stupid semantics, I'll suggest you go find another playmate.
. . .or you can at least explain what it means to "create existing" that's if you are interested in having a sensible conversation

basic english lesson: intelligible statements come in the form of object-verb-subject. Your statement comes in the form of object-verb-verb. It is unintelligible in other words - nonsense.

Story story
Did god create concepts? Ultimately concepts like numbers?

Semi-random
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet

Stalwert: It seems I know who your name!

You know my real name?

Lord_Reed: @wiegraf
I haven't watched the video yet but Sam Harris is incisive which brings me to a question. Have you had any experiences that could be referred to as paranormal/supernatural/spiritual?

No, don't think so. Except maybe the sleeping awake (winchie pressing you in your sleep ) and minor things, perhaps some lucid dreams and what not

Mr_Anony: it is an invalid question. It is silly. like asking if one can do doing or speak speaking or be being or eat eating. I will have to ask you what it means to do doing.

You have only just succeeded in doing awful semantics. Don't even kid yourself that your question has any bit of intellect in it

Anony, you make me sad . Anytime you come across a potential wharrgarbl you start with the accusations. These are very, very valid questions. You don't like the answer does not make them silly. Your behavior exposes how weak your supposed faith is if you have to resort to these shenanigans when your sophistry fails (well, being sophistry, it's supposed to fail, sort of). I didn't attack you, I asked a valid question out of curiosity initially and you answered with your now infamous defensive 'lol'...

Now not so curious though anymore. Are you saying god did not create 'existing', yes or no?

Lord_Reed: My mobile acted up while I was posting that's why its a double post.

The fact that the man appeared to have no stimuli in his cerebral cortex made this story interesting to me. As we've come to know consciousness and brain activity are closely linked but apparently it may be that there is another part of our active thought processes that is not brain-linked. Could be what is refered to as the soul? Doesn't it make you just wonder?

It seemed to me from the onset he was doing the science wrong, but yes of course it would make one wonder if his claims were valid. I'm a materialist (I think that's what it's called, I'm not too big on philosophy) though and would always look for a physical explanation. I would assume there was one we just couldn't find even if we immediately didn't find it. That's just a personal philosophy thing though

Here's a neuroscientist's take on it
http://m.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven
Well known atheist though, so of course better to corroborate with others (to be fair, he does attempt that in his article).

And here's how I think science should be done. Long video, but EXCELLENT (subjective, I know, very good nevertheless). Note one the scientists actions after his mother's death, despite being in deep grief. Not all of us are capable of that, but the goal is to aid humanity now, which he may have succeeded in doing, and he has inadvertently immortalized her, her memory standing for something good.
I especially love the bit about patterns, generally this video relates strongly to the experiences of this surgeon.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm971ltF44A&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dvm971ltF44A

Mr_Anony: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

What sort of question was that?

A very valid one that you can't anony out of. So, god doesn't create qualities/properties?

okeyxyz: There only proofs of Truth are subjective. The facts can be staring you in the face for a billion years, until you decide to consider/investigate it's logic or validity, it'd never be a truth to you.
As per the bible scholars and their contradictions, they can only debate the validity of sources and contexts, they don't debate the message. The Bible(and religion) is a message and it takes the truth/understanding god to receive it.




The evidence is in the message of the bible, and the fact that bible principle(to them that understand) demands conformity to natural laws is proof that nature validates god & vice-versa.

Very

I'll just leave it at that, as this wasn't supposed to be one of those threads, and believe it or not I have no interest in 'converting' people or anything similar. Plus I really should get to work.

Mr_Anony: lol, first he asks a silly question and then when it is is pointed out to him, he accuses me of cheap tricks.

if being means existing, then it is a quality of an entity and not an entity in itself. You have failed to define "being" as a thing in it's own right. We can now move on

.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahaha

Wth sort of answer is this?

Stalwert: I don't understand am I being persecuted? I cannot post in the religion section and all this because I wonder why atheism could be the religion of gays? Check here www.nairaland.com/1072447/could-atheism-considered-gay-religion


Ok I just found out

Banned by manmustwac in Religion for being to
insultive. I don't like the comment comment about
licking mod assss .Ban expires on
10:09am On Oct 15

But where is freedom of speech? Na wa make unah helep me shout!





Vedaxcool is asking what is wrong in using licking asssss, when we know it is clearly like saying kissing one's asssss in essence behaving sheepishly in order to win some favor.

Pls ask manmuswac why being do pained have made him banned vedaxcool unfairly?

Too stoopid to realize just how stoopid you are. A 5 year old would be needed to explain things to you in a manner which you'd understand. Don't expect any replies, except from maybe a kindly nursery school teacher

Mr_Anony: lol, all you just succeeded in doing was play on semantics, nothing more.....and bad semantics at that. "being" is a qualifier and not a noun. It is used in describe the quality that something is. But since you are treating "being" as an object, I'll have to ask you to define "being" on it's own and not as an attribute but as a thing in its own right.
Where you cannot, we'll admit that your question is really nonsense and we'll move on.

Existing

Cheap tricking anony is attempting cheap tricks

okeyxyz: Yes, The Bible!!!
The bible "speaks" truthfully about god, the problem is majority who profess the truth of the bible do so based on their own human-values, whereas this same message of the bible claims to be separate and unmixable with our values.

Proof of the bible's speaking truthfully?
Bible scholarly critics easily have field days showing you the contradictions and that fires cannot talk, authorship issues, etc. The cream of the crop to me though is the OT in which god, the message and claims are just....

okeyxyz: of course all religions are man-made, does that invalidate the truth(if any) of such religion? Frankly this is a silly argument for anybody to hold against a religion. Is there any knowledge/truth/revelation that is not delivered by man(thus, man-made)? Shall we say the internet's claim to connecting people across the globe is false simply because it's man-made? The delivery of such a knowledge may be by man but the principle which governs it is discovered, not invented, and this is the same message of religion: to point man to a (super)natural principle for salvation/righteousness or whatever.

like i said: silly!! argument.

Heh heh heh, your claim here is they weren't designed by man, rather god created religious truths and man was just discovered them. Shame on you for using such a cheap trick. In essence religions are divinely inspired, perhaps stamped with the approval of some deity. Let me ignore most of the silly notions (which show distinctly human faults) religions espouse, do you have any evidence to support their divine origins?

Mr_Anony: Question: What was Kay 17 doing before he came on Nairaland?
Answer: Being Kay 17

Follow up Question: Being Kay 17 and doing what?
Answer: Only Kay 17 can answer that. Ask Kay 17

Yeah, on a slightly different note, what's your answer to the being issue? If god created being, then how god 'being' before he created it?

truthislight: thank you though.

But i think it will have served for a better discussion if you had reproduce an extraction from the site to proof your point.

It is your call.

If you dont proved it otherwise, am still compel to deduce from nature that nature made them male and female and it shows what nature points to as normal helping us to know what is a Misnomer?
Peace

No offence, this makes absolutely no sense.

Neuroscientist (I think, can't remember) sam harris is on it

http://m.samharris.org/blog/item/this-must-be-heaven

I don't get it, is the world in brazil?

truthislight: While i will let others of you extractions to fly, am kind of taking interest on this


can you please tutor me on this^^^^

There's wiki articles even, you can view their sources or just google for homosexuality in animal life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

truthislight: hahaha, you are right on the expect of the bolded though.

And that is what i have been trying to say.

People have the capacity to re-orient themself on this things rather than remaining on it and blaming "god" for a practice that has become a habit.

hahaha, you are right on the expect of the bolded though.

And that is what i have been trying to say.

People have the capacity to re-orient themself on this things rather than remaining on it and blaming "god" for a practice that has become a habit.

Sometimes, for some issues, maybe. I disagree with regards to sexuality though, quite a few are born gay. There is gay all over the animal kingdom. Irrelevant though as even if they chose to be gay, it's their right. Forcing your morality on others is extremely odious to me, and they aren't harming anyone. Since we can confirm the existence of humans and haven't seen god strolling about, I think human rights are much more important than god's laws. Bigots should let god his own smiting come judgment day.

There's also the free will thing but that's another long story