₦airaland Forum

PastorAIO:
You need to read the OP again. He doesn't say Godel's theorem is inconsistent. He says :

Oga, abegi, then what is the clown saying?

On a serious note has this dude ever made an iota of sense? He's like uyi on steroids

Might need to make time to permanently shut him up, but then there's no one else providing his level of entertainment around. They all cried and left

davidylan:
considering he propounded the theory in the first place, one would expect such an appellation would be appropriate. On the other hand, Darwin is more famous for his laws of genetics which are the basic foundation of any genetics class the world over. ToE? Not so much... nice theory which is however not universally accepted.

David, especially the bolded, have you no shame?

UyiIredia:
it will be a miracle. . . the day u stop $hììting in your pants.

Even uyi could tell t'was sarcasm?

sinequanon:
The dude is now pretending that he was using humour.
He was clearly being serious. In retrospect, he now realizes how utterly daft his explanation is.
But it was accepted by davien, plaetton and Dapo777, who then tried to cover up their embarrassing gullibility by pretending that it was all a bit of a joke.
It is hypocrisy like this that is a debate killer. I suppose they felt they had no choice after they'd exposed their total lack of critical faculty.
They preferred to look like hypocrites than like fools, and ended up looking like both!

Maybe I shouldn't be the one pointing this out to you, but I think you have some issues man

Raging and obfuscating even more than Uyi, who readily admits he obfuscates on purpose. lol

Goot times

Actually, op, I do think you're making a whole lot of sense here. You really should consider writing a paper. A paper in which you explain how the seagulls evolved enough intelligence to figure out how to lure out earthworms [s](despite the fact they don't show that sort of intelligence in just about every other sphere of their lives)[/s], rather than the nonsense @evilbrain posted earlier.

EDIT: By the way, have you ever wondered why some dog breeds will chase anything that moves whilst others don't give a $hit? I sense a nobel prize in there somewhere as well. We just need to "put our minds together", as they say.

MrPresident1:
Rambling wiegraf the wierd oaf

I like how you're too stoopid to make sense of that post.

MrPresident1:
Alfa, you have come again. You should be resting rather than causing trouble here and there
The babies are not innocent;

Job 8:8-9
8 For enquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their fathers:
9 (For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth are a shadow

When we point out you're delusional psychopaths, you whine.

Anyways, there's another batch of child-winchies in Calabar at the moment. Kindly make your way there and proceed to administer almighty god's judgement on them please.

When you're done, I'll have another list of winchies for you to deal with, but you can start with those methinks

Good person doing good things because of his storybooks, then calls atheists evil, unintelligent and incapable of discerning good from bad, etc. Where to even begin? lol

^^^

Just read bits of the other thread and it seems all that roundabout, all this, is simply some mummer's farce he wants to use to pull the "GODIDIT!!!" card out of his a$$ to anything he doesn't understand (or even by definition, cannot be understood). Just like any other die-hard creatard. Merrily ignoring that all the evidence points in the other direction whilst singing LALALALALA.

He at least tries to do so with the skill of a rather poor opera singer, but still an opera singer nonetheless. As opposed the the skills of a proper amateur, eg Patience Jonathan attempting to play the lead on a complex number, which is more what we are used to from his likes.

He wants justify something from nothing, and his 'nothing' will just happen to be some sort of bearded old man in the sky and bring in all his fluffy dreams along etc. Good lucking him with that

plaetton:
The truth is that you make little sense to anyone.
You pretend to be living an alternate universe where the universe bends according to your word definitions.

You are like a food critic who relishes in criticizing meals he has never and could never prepare.

trying different flavors of invisible pink unicorn meat

sinequanon:
Ignoring your hopeless retreat back into your circular "evidence" argument (can't you read?), this is the first attempt at something sensible that I have seen you post.

But it is wrong.

You can call "nothing travels faster than the speed of light" a "provisional truth" in the sense that it is a "working assumption" that is so far deemed consistent with scientific thinking.

But, "the whole universe is govern by repeatable, reproducible, unchanging law and logic" is not a "provisional truth" in science. It is an absolute truth in science. It is not falsifiable from within science, because science allows no way for that to happen.

As I mentioned earlier, you are too thick to see the difference. So perhaps someone with intelligence could take up your point on your behalf.

Mr intelligence, I addressed this nonsense in my first post. you're so clear sighted you missed it it seems

oya, again, tell me how stars formed under different conditions. in fact, do tell how a universe without universal, unchanging natural laws does not equate to chaos

I await, oh 'sophisticated' armchair oga

Ranchhoddas:
if it could be explained with a scientific paper,it wouldn't be supernatural anymore would it?

so, now folly claims his nonsense is supernatural

this is worse than I thought

at least he's stopped with the pretences

gooot. as it's now supernatural, unlike his past claims that it was natural phenomena skeptics simply hadn't come across because they were too arrogant/stoopid, what guarantee do I have that his supernatural spirit would be inclined to indulge me when I show up. what if it was say taking a $hit and didn't want to bothered? or like Yahweh he now decided it was time to be mysterious to pesky unbelievers for the next say 2000 years?

you want me to waste time on supernatural or natural claims. pls be clear

Ranchhoddas:
typical!

What? Your reasoning skills? Your lack of comprehension? Or your red herrings and attempted ad hominems when asked to produce something as simple as a scientific paper? Which abeg?

Arsenal

sinequanon:
Sorry, you are too thick for me to deal with, which is why my post didn't mention you.

Only stupid laypeople think the way you do. Scientists generally understand that there is an element of faith in science, and there are branches of philosophy questioning that faith -- dumbo.

Nah, you were weary of being schooled. And you were, as this is no response. Rather, a pathetic retreat.

Now, please do run along and report me to your imaginary friends or whatever. And find fellow professional armchair philosophers (that so love to circlejerk about how awesome they are) like yourself, who you can confuse by equating the fact that scientific truths are provisional into meaning science relies on faith, ignoring the whole evidence part.

EDITED

Ranchhoddas:
this sounds like fear to me .so how else do you want him to prove it to you?

Did you read my post? As I very clearly gave an excellent example in there.

Try reading it s-l-o-w-l-y

sinequanon:
You can easily do the same for science.

[size=16pt]The fundamental axioms of science are infallible -- (The whole universe is govern by repeatable, reproducible, unchanging law and logic).[/size]

But how can you be so sure that the axioms are infallible?

sinequanon:
[size=16pt]Because we have evidence and proof that tell us they are.[/size]

Didn't you just answer yourself??

sinequanon:
But what do you mean by evidence?

[size=16pt]Anything that obeys the laws and logic of science.[/size]

No, ser clown. Let's start with simple wiki (frankly, not going to waste too much time on your likes looking up sources etc, so this would have to do)

wiki: Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Or you know what, mayhaps your definition just above is near as good. Refreshing your memory.....

sinequanon:
[size=16pt]Because we have evidence and proof that tell us they are.[/size]

Hope that clears that up, yes? Evidence, proof, as opposed to, you know, faith (especially the blind sort y'all peddle)

sinequanon:
But how do you know that applies to everything?

We don't, to everything. We do know they apply to everything that relates to us. Ie, they apply to everything in this universe. Or do you have any evidence that suggests otherwise? Heck, even mathematical. Please share.

For instance, I, or the scientific community, can point out that if stuff were moving about faster than light in this universe, why aren't we seeing the inevitable effects of such, eg, time travelers from the future? If entropy were void, why haven't we encountered any system, even a logical theoretical model, that does not violate the principles? You also do know that these finely tuned constants that govern the universe, constants you guys usually use to justify Creationism, eg the power of the main forces, deviated even extremely slightly than this universe would be radically different, yes? Here, let me help die hard creatards

wiki: Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.[12][13]

N, the ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[13]

Epsilon (ε), the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.007. If it were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang.[13]

Omega (Ω), also known as the Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[13]

Lambda (λ) is the cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.[14] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant was not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[13]

Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[13]

D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4

Yet everywhere we look around, we see all these phenoma. Eg, that slight change in Epilson and there'd be no stars anywhere. Look through a microscope and explain all those lights away please.

Hmm, how did stars form in these regions with different laws to ours please? Your evidence, even logical, abeg.

sinequanon:
[size=16pt]The fundamental axioms of science are infallible -- (The whole universe is govern by repeatable, reproducible, unchanging law and logic).[/size]

So, you just filter out what you don't want to like, and bingo! you have truth.


www.nairaland.com/attachments/1883472_780pxbiblecycle_jpeg6eb8159e577f1d414c012eaa35feeb37

Once again, good ser clown, we filter out what cannot be proven or what is illogical, shown to be false, etc. Like you intimidated above before you enter bush. Can you back up your claim, yes or no? If it's wishy washy nonsense, which you obviously, clearly, definitely cannot backup, it isn't science.

This is not nuclear science, it is not hard to understand. I hope you get it?

Next time please quote me directly if you expect a reply else I might miss it. Though I don't really enjoy wasting time with people who should know better (ie, assuming you qualify as one). It infuriates one when he has to point out the obvious to someone who should know better.

Ranchhoddas:
tnx man...weah96...there you have it.

You think I don't have better things to do than confirm if santa really lives at the north pole?

Even if I were in Lagos, I would never indulge his nonsense.

What does he need me to verify for anyhoo? He should just use it and run fasteer than Usain Bolt (like he suggested I do, see my sig), become superstar, make mega bucks or something else, instead of share delusions here on NL with us.

I mean, for instance, there are these miraculous things called 'scientific papers' where anyone can read, critique and verify the claims in them provided he had the right tools. Our chief clown can start heading in that direction, at the very least, before anyone should even bother with his asinine claims.

MrPresident1:
Maybe you should change your name from wiegraf to weird-oaf.

You people are simply hard of hearing, lacking in the simplest of comprehension skills and perpetually willing to multiply words absent of the faintest whiff of common sense.

Yes, there are 'professionals' who understand the truth of the Holy Bible, you cannot understand it because you mind is weak. Those who understand the Bible have minds made of reinforced steel. Men of strength, character, learning, and great humility, from your word, unfortunately, I fail to detect the slightest trace of any of these characteristics in you.

The Bible is written in codes and dark language, only the deserving will come into the light of true knowledge and understanding.

Weird-oaf the human hyena.

Is it me or did you type not just more nonsense, but with the added bonus of it being nonsense that addresses absolutely nothing?

Please, learn to conserve energy. There are kids starving around the world and here you are wasting various resources.

Btw, professionals studying the Marvel comics have more to offer humanity than those your pros that read stories about men living whales for 3 days, slaving, selling daughters etc. At least in the Marvel comics the good guys usually win.

^^^^

Hiswordxray:
This is the biggest lie I have ever heard. Atheist do not have honest conscience but instead they have a troubled conscience which they try to calm which foolish logical lies.
You know God exist but you denial him and your conscience will forever trouble you no matter the lies you tell yourself.

Is your brain so diseased you forget you quoted me first? What was that, less than 24 hours ago? Were you not the one accusing me of telling the 'biggest' lie ever, making fo.olish contradictions, having a troubled conscience blah blah??

Hope you aren't trying some subterfuge with some superb mumu-ism? I hope you genuinely aren't this mo.ronic (though it clearly seems that way, given your responses so far...)

Anyhoo, I'll try one last time, because I'm a good guy. As I noticed a distinct lack of an answer, once again, please answer; what exactly do you think you achieved with that your post?

Hiswordxray:
You have no idea what faith is and you know God exist. For the Bible says "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Rom 1:18-21).

And you can say whatever you like to disqualify those verses but telling me and telling yourself that you don't know if God exist, is a big lie.
STOP DECEIVING YOURSELF AND FACE THE TRUTH.

What exactly do you think you just achieved?

MrPresident1:
The Bible is written in parables, allegories, metaphors and all kinds of figurative language; it is not for foolish people to understand. For example, you do realise that if you are not a medical doctor, or a lawyer, or an engineer, some aspects of their professional jargons would not make any sense to you? It is the same with the Bible and other holy writs; they are all written in codes to deter people like you with evil motives from gaining understanding.

Psalm 78:2
I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:

You mean to say there are professionals at deciphering stone age bed time stories? Nobody argues that. We just wonder why you take them seriously. And how not caring for such barbaric nonsense automatically qualifies one as 'foolish'.

So, 'parables'...

Like god sending 2 she-bears to slaughter 42(?) children for calling a bald man bald? What's the message there? What lesson was attained from that bit of nonsense, hmmm?

Asking abraham to kill his son, condoning slavery, ordering genocide etc etc. Parables? Please explain. These do not give people 'evil' ideas? All the people through history that have used your 'good' book primarily to justify innumerable evils; religious wars, bigotry and hate, inquisitions etc etc, have you not noticed them? Or is there some sort of deficiency in your brain you'd like to share with us?

Frankly, you seem to be saying that the average gorilla is more sensible than your god, as even it would be sensible enough to know that ordering genocide and pronouncing it 'holy' would give people good excuses to be evil. I mean, they rarely (if ever) set out to murder other gorillas, or do they?

Anyhoo, just start with the one immediately relevant parable. He punishes all animals (note bros, in the real world man is an animal too) because some illiterates ate a fruit millenia ago? A fruit he, an omnixx.xx being, put there himself. Well knowing they would eat it. And, to spicen things up, at the behest of another one of his creations...

Basically, he now punishes man (and all the other poor species that had nothing to do with this, except some damn snake) for his own mistakes. Please explain, oga parable.

MrPresident1:
As for the example of the reindeer caught in a fire, do animals have souls?

Are you really asking an atheist about souls? And what was that you mentioned about giving people bad ideas?

So, supposing these deer did not have souls, like your good book (or you) intimate, that's good enough reason to let them suffer senselessly?

We can do as we wish, so long as we don't harm beings with souls, AKA us, special humans?

Well done and thank you

MrPresident1:
No biggie. it is the law of the jungle. The Hyenas did not kill out of hatred (perhaps only humans kill out of hatred), they killed because they had to feed. It isn't about wickedness or cruelty, it is the instinct to feed and nothing more. The struggle by the pregnant Zebra and the injured wildebeest meant nothing to the predators who had to feed, conscious reasoning would have pitied the preys, but in the jungle, instinct rules.

The predators weren't merciless, they are incapable of being either merciful or merciless, they only obeyed the rules by which they live, the instinctual rule of the wild.

Unlike atheists and satanists who consciously and deliberately deny the existence of their creator, human hyenas, they deny because they want the freedom to act instinctively like the wild hyenas, free from the shackles of reason and conscious morality.

which law what? why does omnipotent need establish that?

bros which creator u dey talk about? the one for story book wey dey order genocide with glee? even after u get past d fact DAT its a group of middle age fairy tales, no single shred of common sense or evidence behind them, oya explain for us why a live baby elephant should be eaten alive because some naked illiterate ate a fruit millennia ago.

^^ more proof of the lack of common sense. barbaric logic at its finest

explain why immoral godless atheists have to point this out whilst you god filled do- gooders continue to worship and praise such a monster

or break it down to the simples; the problem of evil. a bush fire breaks out, a baby reindeer gets caught in it. terrible burns and pain, for days lying in anguish, slowly till it dies.

what was Yahweh doing all the while, watching with pop corn?

davien:
The excuse is that all animals ate plants before "the fall", "man's sin" brought death...

So they suffer for our sins too?

I don tire...

you should see them take on baby elephants. taste b better warm n fresh. so decreed god.. a.bi una like c.old food?

This thread deserves some award or something imo


xtian bros....

^^^^
No vex no vex no vex
temporarily buuuuussssssssyyyyyyy

Will get back to it definitely

PastorAIO:
Hi there. I think we are confusing Naturalism with Atheism. This is a common error. The fact is that most Atheism is based on Naturalism. But not all Atheism. For instance, most Buddhism is atheistic but it is full of belief in 'supernatural' beings.

Most Atheists derive their atheism from Naturalism. They are first Naturalist and subsequently they cannot believe in any supernatural beings, of which God is one.

The whole issue of Naturalism versus Supernaturalism is a very messy one that I've thrashed out on NL in the past.

The main jist of my contentions is 1) Most naturalists don't even know what they are talking about when they make the distinction between Natural and supernatural. It is one of the most ill-defined philosophical terms.
2)This allows for all sort of wishy-washiness. Ultimately whatever phenomenon you present can be dismissed as being natural because natural has just come to mean Everything. It makes a mockery of language itself, and often the only way to properly demonstrate this is to flick it and tell then that Supernatural just means 'Everything that exists'.

I've got a feeling that you'd like a proper dialogue on this issue, but due to limitations of time and the fact that I've also thrashed the subject out here on NL numerous times before, I hope you don't mind if I just refer you to threads in which this matter has been discussed before.
If you think there is anything that is left out or left unconsidered in the threads then we can take it on from there.

https://www.nairaland.com/279631/why-not-atheist/6

My main problem is that of classifications and categorisations. Before we use a word like Natural, we must know what we mean by it and what we are talking about, otherwise we succumb to absurdity at the very first hurdle.

https://www.nairaland.com/280962/what-supernatural#3990511

Just a quick note, I'll address more clearly eventually, but yes, I am indeed saying that if you ain't a naturalist, you aren't an atheist. There's no difference between mumbo jumbo a and mumbo jumbo x except for terminology

Strictly speaking you are correct in that some 'spiritual' people, like some buddhists, would refer to themselves as atheist. Strictly speaking again, in normal parlance, you are correct; they are atheist. But I, personally, think that's extremely shortsighted.

You believe in juju you aren't an atheist, simples. They are the same concept(s) as god just using different nomenclature.

As for definitions as to what supernatural would be, and if their definition allows for them to show that they exist that's another long story I too do not particularly have the time to address properly. But yes, I believe they can be demonstrated if they do indeed exist, and would not fall under the definition of natural just because they have been observed/verified in some manner or the other. Perhaps I will be back to elaborate.

Also, skimming through your posts, yes, causality may be a huge factor here, with 'god playing dice' etc all involved. But I can save that for another time. It is never straight forward, especially when you consider factors like how time works, eg simultaneous events in all frames is impossible, aforementioned quantum weirdness etc.

But like I said, another long story.

Kudos.

sinequanon:
Stop posturing.

You make yourself sound like one of these shrill laypeople who think that they can substitute ranting for argument.

What have you contributed here? Address the question, and stop dilly-dallying.

have you been playing around with your medication?

sinequanon:
Absolute beliefs in science:
We live in an entirely mechanistic universe.
There exists an immutable set of laws governing the universe.
Consciousness and intelligence are emergent properties of complexity, rather than inherent to the universe.
Basic ancient human logic is correct.
There is no such thing as free choice.
..to name a few.
Most scientists know that science makes fundamental, unchanging assumptions.
It is their vocal lay followers who perpetuate the dogma that nothing is absolute in science.
Scientists mostly keep a pragmatic silence and let this misinformation propagate.

Are you misinformed or just blatantly lying?

PastorAIO:
This is not an Atheist. Rather it describes an Agnostic.

An atheist says: that there is no fruit in the box. Of course, he cannot prove that any more than the theist can prove the colour of the fruit in the box if the fruit existed.

A worthy opponent to disagree with it, at last. An atheist does not necessarily say there is no fruit in the box, it's more he says if there is indeed something in the box, it arose naturally.

A good and proper agnostic, imo, would be more open to whether these claims are possible. Put in another way, I would say an agnostic would claim that as we cannot, perhaps even by definition, determine that the supernatural exists then maybe, just maybe, there's the possibility....

The atheist, on the other hand? No. All there is is natural. Nothing more, nothing less.

That right there, I believe is the subtle difference between full blown atheists and agnostics (put in those pesky freethinkers, etc, amongst those ranks).




On another somewhat random note, as usual one ignoring and confusing as to which god. Confusionist-in-chief-plaetton-wannabe folly leading the charge, obfuscating and pulling all manner of silly tricks. Also, bafflingly, claiming he knows what's in the box, the concept being one that pisses all over natural laws, yet is an atheist.

Anyways, I can be fully atheist to certain claims, eg yahweh and talking yoruba dolls that can make me faster than Usain Bolt. However I can be 'agnostic', in the sense that I cannot tell you categorically that they do not exist, to those vaguest of the most vaguest concepts of god. The ones that were in rocks till science figured out rocks were just some sort of minerals. Then ran off to the sky, got caught there too. Then the Milky Way, and now apparently live beyond the scope of spacetime.

Well, I certainly don't live my life believing they exist. The simple fact that through history most of these concepts have been contorted and evolved, becoming more and more sophisticated with the advent of science whilst usually leaving one aspect untouched; humanity as the centre of the universe, should tell one something.

Again, I cannot, however, tell you categorically that they do NOT exist (as we cannot test the hypothesis, yet (and maybe even perhaps ever, depending on natural laws), and they are not yet shown to 'break' natural laws) . I can tell you there's no good reason to believe they do exist though, non at all I can think of. You can call that agnostic if you wish, but I simply won't just accept any souped mumbo jumbo as evidence (where is oga deepsight, lol). Most importantly I can tell you that if indeed such exists, they are bound to natural laws. That's what I believe makes me a good and proper atheist.

So, there might be something in the box, but it's natural.