₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
God does not and cannot have a brain, such as humans would have, as God is intangible.
Mind you, the beings that designed our physical bodies might have brains.

Wiegraf, have you repented of your mystical ways as per my satanic conjurations?

So how does god function?

If it's intangible it might as well just be an abstract construct, no?

Or are you saying it's intangible and has a will. If so, how?

As for the last bit, do you refer to my travels to other realms? Are you the Winchie that's been hampering me?

DeepSight:
No my friend, even if you came across the simplest possible imitation of a computer on a barren planet like Mars, you would still logically infer that it had a designer. You would have no choice.

But you see a super computer of unimaginable capacity and you conclude that it had no creator.

What you have actually concluded is that a thing that could make computers, needed no creator itself. Funnily enough this shows you up as contradictory for God is also referred to as a thing that created us which needed no creator. Unfortunately though, we can reference your birth as the beginning of your earthly life: you cannot do same for the permanent element that is called God.

The human brain bespeaks not just design, but intricate design and purpose.
Denying that is simply living in a f.ool's paradise sorry.

"Who designed god's brain?"

Asked wiegraf for the umpteenth time

DeepSight:
Ah!

Allahu Akbar, I see the demon wiegraf viewing this thread!

Wiegraf bro, Happy New Year.

I bid you change thy contrary ways, and herewith conjure right thinking theism into your head.
Receive!

Allahu Akbar.

Happy New Year good ser!

It seems like you've not updated the gospel of infinitenessess. No new revelations ser?

johnydon22:
i don't actually i am quite picky on the people i'd give time these days since my time is quite limited now..

I know few of respectable intellect that are worth my time though but for this particular thread i contributed only because i'm quite chauvinistic about the African traditional religion..

Anyway i had an offline organized debate with your old friend anony here in Enugu in October...

Are you guys revolving around anony in that pic?

Omudia11:
I see no problem here. That is not a bible, as a bible cannot be revised but can only be translated. That is a book by "FLOYD MCELVEEN". Front cover below. So calm your nerves.

Lol. Good work on one part, that isn't a bible but....

...Doesn't change the fact that the infallible word of god has indeed been compiled and revised through the ages, not just translated

Hmm?

OLAADEGBU:
I sincerely believe God had a hand in Trump winning the election, it went against all odds.

Et tu, ola?

You believe your god picked someone who loves to grab women by the puśśy?

To be fair, trump is rather tame when compared to many of Yahweh's agents

Yahweh sure does love to work in mysterious ways

AnonyNymous:
cc wiegraf

Can't do it myself. I can only control a lucid dream whilst it's already ongoing, not initiate one

Those who can do so only after practice. I believe the trick is to induce rem sleep. Rem sleep is not deep sleep (this is why stressed people tend to have more lucid dreams/sleep paralysis - their sleep tends to be more fretful), so basically don't allow yourself to fall into deep sleep by using say alarms. From there you'll just have to be somewhat vigilant as you sleep and wait for a chance to take control.

Put another way

wiki: The first step to lucid dreaming is recognizing one is dreaming. This recognition might occur in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is one of the few areas deactivated during REM sleep and where working memory occurs. Once this area is activated and the recognition of dreaming occurs, the dreamer must be cautious to let the dream continue but be conscious enough to remember that it is a dream. While maintaining this balance, the amygdala and parahippocampal cortex might be less intensely activated.[30] To continue the intensity of the dream hallucinations, it is expected the pons and the parieto-occipital junction stay active.[31]

If you keep at it eventually you'll be able to induce them at will

Anyways lots of other Googles on how to induce lucid dreams

All of you attacking Hahn, is your god not responsible for this disaster

Are you saying it took place against his will?

FSMs:
How did you control your sleep paralysis into lucid dream?

Like I said, simply don't panic. Realise you're lucid and dreaming at the same time.

What is happening is that while you're conscious on various levels, your brain hasn't actually fully booted up, and so the functions responsible for moving your body haven't been loaded yet; this is responsible for the paralysis.

Your conscious mind is also capable of interacting with the bizarro world your subconscious (or whatever) has cooked up at this point. So, interact. That's it

AnonyNymous:
I guess I was lucky not to have sleep paralysis. That sounds scary

Sleep paralysis is lucid dreaming

Just like you said, you were scared at first. That's were most people stop, and the unpleasant situation is labled sleep paralysis

If you don't panic though, like you did, you can go ahead and have a pleasant experience.

I too recently had an enjoyable experience, went as far as some astral projection

It was quite fun

balanceofterror1:
There's God in Heaven and you have to pass the SUN to where He's. Since Atheists and scientists cannot travel to the SUN for fear of being melt, they should cover their face in SHAME.

Superman can pass the sun

Therefore Superman is greater than god

Checkmate

HardMirror:
This is extremely ridiculous. Where did u get this bullcrap?

The sauce is just above. But pray tell, what, good ser, strikes you as ridiculous?

Here is the sauce

https://m.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/5guik7/my_sister_is_homeschooling_her_6year_old_daughter/

Itt: Adults refuse to believe a 6year old is a better thinker than they are

Dohohohoho

GrizzlyBear:
Still evading the premise of this thread...

I would have loved to present a well thought out reply to your question, but it would definitely devolve into an argument that would stray from the premise of this thread.

Please attend to the premise of this thread.

If he were reasonable he wouldn't be blindly religious. Just ignore him.

I really wonder why people here give him their time, but that could be just me (unlikely, he's Homer Simpson level of bumbling clown from what I can see)

As for the rank selfishness of the religious, the more cultured ones could argue that consciousness and freewill (in particular) is the grand aim, and not necessarily ours. They would also argue that resources spent are insignificant to the god. For instance, you need just set down the basic rules and let the program run, the rest would be generated automatically. In this case the basic rules would be the laws of physics. Once that is established the rest comes automatically

Of course I don't buy any of it, though under certain conditions some of it may be feasible

But yeah, most of them believe this universe was created just for them just because, and they don't see anything wrong in that because they are just that special

oaroloye:
SHALOM!



FUNDAMENTALLY, I AM A CHRISTIAN.

YAHSHUA said that anyone not opposing HIM is our FRIEND.

Therefore, I also subscribe to certain Truths from

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard's SCIENTOLOGY,

Carlos Castaneda's NAGUALISM,

and James Redfield's CELESTINE PROPHECY.


Which views I have endeavored to set forth on my Blog Pages accessible HERE.

Many would think you crazy ser, but I say forge your own path.

I'll read up on those topics, thanks

Makaveli08:
There's no such thing as a "xtian storybook version" of the problem of evil. Plantinga's defense was a direct response to philosopher J.L Mackie formulation of the logical problem of evil.




How can it still be problematic for the theist if the critic who presents the logical problem of evil in the first place, has to make assumptions in order to make their case?

Because the theist is making assumptions too

Because the assumptions the critic make are very reasonable. Enough to make the theistic claim impossible without a good deal of faith, and nonsensical in most contexts. This is how we get to the evidential problem of evil

Would you like to explore your claims?

Op, Dem no too lie na!

Happy happy for you op. That's a great family you have there

There's a huge stigma associated with mental health issues, enough to ward off people who should clearly be seeking help. Addressing these issues start with posts like this

oaroloye:
SHALOM!



Sorry, but you just do not understand how the Oyinbo System works.

At the End of the Day, he is just another TENTACLE in the Oyinbo OCTOPUS OF EVIL!

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

He is like the "DEFENSE LAWYER" the Oyinbos give you, when they ARREST you for doing NOTHING.



THEY ARE PART OF THE SAME SYSTEM OF OPPRESSION, WHOSE OVERALL GOAL IS TO KEEP US UNDER CONTROL UNTIL WE DIE.

Why be impressed because of the ONE PART of the MACHINE that is GOING AWAY from you- when there are NINETY-NINE parts that are heading for your JUGULAR?

Don't you know how HUNTING TRAPS work?

HOW MANY ATHEISTS HAS HE CONVERTED?

By their fruits you know them.

The Oyinbos invent all these Religions and Philosophies that mean nothing but to them, and do not stop any of their other Evils they jurist talk you to death while they are killing you.

Which philosophies or religions do you subscribe to oga?

Makaveli08:
Nope I'm telling the truth :

"Plantinga's free will defense has been generally accepted as a successful response to the claim that God's existence and the existence of evil are logically inconsistent." (What Philosophers Know: Case Studies in Recent Analytic Philosophy by Gary Gutting, pg 110)

"Although Plantinga’s defence failed to persuade critics like Mackie and Flew,it is now widely considered to be a strong and effective response to the logical problem of evil." (The God Beyond Belief: In Defence of William Rowe's Evidential Argument from Evil by Nick Trakakis, pg 34)

"Most philosophers have agreed that the free will defense has defeated the logical problem of evil. [...] Because of [Plantinga's argument], it is now widely accepted that the logical problem of evil has been sufficiently rebutted." (Introducing Philosophy of Religion by Chad Meister, pg 131)

"Though there never has been and likely never will be a resolution of the so-called "problem of evil" to which all parties agree, there has been a kind of meeting of the minds in the last half century or so that has served to refocus the debate. This meeting of the minds was facilitated in 1974 by Alvin Plantinga's publication of a refutation of the so-called "logical argument from evil" (LAE) (Plantinga 1974a, 164-196; 1974b, 29-59; see Sennett 1998, 22-49). Plantinga's argument-a version of the venerable free will defense-was impressive enough that many prominent philosophers declared LAE dead once and for all. Even William Rowe, considered the dean of advocates of the problem of evil, called Plantinga's offering "a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God" (1979, 335)." ( Philosophical Approaches to the Devil By Benjamin W. McCraw)

"It used to be widely held by philosophers that God and evil are incompatible. Not any longer. Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense is largely responsible for this shift."Howard-Snyder, Daniel; John O’Leary-Hawthorne (1999). "Transworld Sanctity and Plantinga's Free Will Defense"

“Although the logical problem of evil marks an important phase in the literature on evil, discussion of it markedly diminished during the 1980s. It is fairly widely agreed by theists and nontheists alike that Alvin Plantinga, Keith Yandell, and other theistic philosophers have cast serious doubt on the viability of all formulations of the logical problem. Critics who still think that evil presents a problem for theistic belief have shifted focus away from the logical version of the problem and have sought to construct a viable evidential version.” (Reason & Religious Belief: An Introduction to Philosophy of Religion, p. 121)

OK. You're rice and I see where you're coming from, so I apologise for claiming you lied.

That said, I would like to point out hIs accepted solution does not resolved all versions of the problem of evil, just the xtian storybook version of it, which you call the logical problem of evil. And even at that, he's just pointed out that there's no necessary contradiction there provided you interpret certain terms in a particular manner. It still remains problematic as for instance he also has to make assumptions to make it work, just as critics make assumptions to make their case, among other things..

Plantinga is an oga of apologetics who's solution to the problem seems to be similar to where you're headed Op, so you should be on his side...

Makaveli08:
The logical problem of evil is considered by most philosophers today to have been refuted by Alvin Plantinga's freewill defense.

Why lie so shamelessly?

Xtians calling others wolves in sheep clothing. The irony....

Displaying their charitable xtian spirit /s

Welcome op! I don't trust your eyes tho...they're too kind

Begin, good ser

plaetton:
Atheists have suffered pushbacks from the state and its agents throughout history.
But atheism is far from being a lifestyle. There are no peculiar rituals or structures peculiar to atheism that threaten basic structure of society.

It can easily be argued that atheism is more of a lifestyle than sexuality, as there's no biological component to it as far as I can tell

And I'm looking real hard, but I struggle to see just exactly where homosexuality threatens the basic structure of society. I mean, the Netherlands legalized same sex unions since 2001 and they seem to be doing just fine.

You seem to think there's a false dichotomy here; there isn't. Let me put my main question in another manner though

In an Islamic state, do you think it hypocritical and unrealistic to not expect support from the government for a cause such as the freedom of religion? The freedom to apostate, to inherit, women's rights, etc?

Supposing I grew up in such a state, I should just shut up and expect all these to go on unabated because it offends the majority's values? If I expect some sort of decency that makes me unrealistic and a hypocrite??!

plaetton:
I am in support of the state enacting laws to safeguard the core values and norms upon which society stands.

The state has every right to feel nervous and threatened by a completely unorthodox practice that turns its most basic and important social unit, the family, upside down.

I think it's hypocritical and very unrealistic not to expect an angry pushback when an unorthodox and unnatural practice seeks validation from the State.

Going back to early human history, we recognize that the first communities were forged around common core values, interests and or threats. The values of every society begin and revolve around the family unit.
The family unit is the center of gravity for community and society.
Therefore, the state has the power and mandate to safeguard and preserve the mutual core values of the society.

I am not in support of criminalizing homosexuality, but I agree that the state should not endorse any alternative structure to the family unit.

Atheism is not a common, shared value as well

Do you think it hypocritical and unrealistic to not expect support from the government for atheistic causes as well?

Should the state not endorse a family's lifestyle because they are atheists?

DeepSight:
I do not even mind of one disputes it: in fact debate is the life of the party: what I mind is someone saying that everyone should just shut up and keep quiet as nothing can ever be known. . . .

I do see where you're coming from, but don't you think you're giving mixed messages? You say a statement cannot be argued against logically, yet it can be debated?

The two positions taken together are meaningless. A lot of what you post, in most contexts, ends up being just as meaningless

Josh is the oga at the topest when it comes to such folly. And no, he does not extricate himself the way you do

So yes, you do have a point, but don't you think you stretch things a wee bit much at times

Come come oga, I'm sure you and the pastor can reach a middle ground here

DeepSight:
A spirit being is simply you absent your physical body. Now I know that you do not believe that you can exist absent your body, but you can, and indeed you will. If you have ever had out of body experiences you will have a personal knowledge of this which will be beyond words and arguments.

Your values are simply the same thing: that which will be important to you without the needs of a physical body being considered.

I've had a couple of out of body experiences. They were fun, yes, but they were all in my head

I don't believe in freewill so all this is moot. And this hypothetical you sounds like a different consciousness, a different being entirely even if sharing some properties, so who knows how that would work? Would you still have the same sort of thought patterns as a spirit? Will you still have the same feelings etc?

However, as I am now, I would say maybe? The novelty could wear off