₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi: @highlighted, you do know that that statement is nonsense, right, wiegraf? Can a supreme entity be subject to anything?

Erm, yes. Whatever your 'supreme' is. I've asked you this before; can god make 1+1=3, yes? Do note I'm talking about objective, mathematical truths.

So, and again, slowly, and don't toss nonsense at me again.

Can god make 1+1=3?

Uyi Iredia: I see your logic. Now let's apply it to from another pov. Humans xame about through evolution and as a result all their traits, physical or mental, are based on matter and its behaviour, particularly in the form of genes. Given that, all our actioms are nothing buta function of our genes, selfish genes (as Dawkins said). Why then would you condemn and punish or reward a human who is merely following an evolved trait ? Say for example, throw a r@pist, trying to preserve his genes in prison.

Long and short of it, rehabilitation and prevention. We 'modern' folk do not use revenge these days as an excuse to punish. And god wouldn't exactly have any reason to rehabilitate or prevent in heaven, would he?

Note, this is mostly about culpability, and when people do do crimes we do level some of the blame at society at large. I'll elaborate some more later, no time atm.

ghostofsparta: Even Santa people would want to check before making conclusion on a forum. But hey, whatever gives you solace.

I see. So you've been to the north pole?

The Harbinger ~:
the reasonable this is more acceptable to you is because you'll obviously be more comfortable with a lie than with the truth of the matter.

See, obadiah

The Harbinger ~:
freewill and omniwhatever are not juxtaposed(edit: in the way you mean it). Why are you assuming that they are?

Edit it again, I suggest

The Harbinger ~:
please show me how freewill counters omniscience.

first, humans have freewill, they choose what to do. Some choose evil, others choose good.(God)

Why would God find pleasure in using robots and communing with robots who cannot understand anything except fulfilling their programming? God did not just create humans to do his bidding, he created man in his image, to also fellowship with him. Commune I mean.(You won't understand what that entails, since you're an atheist who does not know God or God-communion)

he created you. That's a totally different account from your actions. He didn't create you to roast forever.

Answer this question: do you want to roast forever?

As I said in that quote, God does create anyone to roast forever, and he certainly does not want anyone to roast forever.(He sent Jesus, so your actions against good would be forgiven and you would escape roasting forever)

You only show you want to roast forever by your actions.

I'm on mobile ATM, a chore to quote. But this is, well, piss poor and you've not added anything new.

For one, when was this about the freewill/omniscience conundrum. I'll get a PC and elaborate, though it's already been said.

Unlike Obadiah you really aren't stating anything new...

Uyi Iredia: Resumes his gaffs. Do fine-tune your argument. Free-will works with constraints as observed in various national legal codes and their enforcement.

Do look up the meaning of freewill, and for bonus points juxtapose that with omnixx, but let's disregard that.

So you understand freewill comes packed with certain properties, yes? Inescapable, logical truths that god is subject to, yes? Goot. God has to enforce laws is what you're saying, to achieve whatever his subjective goals are.

One of these truths is that so long as there is freewill, there will be 'evil'. God full well knows this before he puts the lion in that jungle. So why does he come back and blames the lion for it? For doing what lions do, what he programmed? Did anyone force him to make the lion?

obadiah777: lack of involvement with evil ? who said he has lack of involvement with evil ? he is the one directing the evil. just think of him as a quarterback. he uses the evil in people for retribution to other people. he is directly involved in evil.

proverbs 16 vs 4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

amos 3 vs 6 shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

isaiah 45 vs 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things

and he gave us freewill. which is why you can choose to be good or evil. and if you choose to be evil he has evil people waiting to give you retribution. plane crashes, motor accidents, people getting killed etc etc, who you think doing all that ? thats judgement on people who have done evil. nothing in life is coincidence

This is more sensible than standard xtian interpretations. He would still be a dramatic, sadistic douche mind you, bit at least this is more logical.

That said, again, the standard xtian strongly disagrees with you

The Harbinger ~:
One more thing, your analogy is preposterous wiegraf.

Though you mysteriouslynesses cannot show how.

Now, harbinger of doom, you miss the points. For one, accountability. Why did he place the lion in there in the first, full well knowing (and creating) what lions do?

Why give the lion the lion freewill if he did not want it to use it? Couldn't he have just created robots to do his bidding?

We are ignoring omnixx for the most part, mind you. It worsens the situation. For instance, that is a really poor excuse for his amger. He knows it won't amount to much yet he still gets angry? Or he knows the act will help him get a leg up, spurring some to his (totally subjective) 'good'? So if he knew they were going to be bad eventually, why create them? You would create something you knew you were going to roast forever?? Well....

aManFromMars: Would you jump on a bike that has Freewill?

When we do build sky net and it goes about sensibly wiping out the cancer that is humanity, I wonder who we'll blame.

Tbf we arent omniscient

obadiah777: your post is quite preposterous and glaringly inaccurate. the bolded, that is

genesis 2 vs 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. <<< that dont sound like 'do as it pleases' smdh

What is the excuse given for god's lack of involvement with evil?

Also, are you saying Yahweh didn't give us freewill?

okeyxyz: @OP, bad analogy. Not only is it bad analogy but also evidence that you are probably lost in your attempt to figure out the story and morals of adam & eve in the bible. So this weak attempt to re-tell it in a lion story is just your way of dealing with(actually suppressing ) the fact that you are unable to dig deep and present a proper critique that is worthy of serious debate. So this OP is DOA and i'm treating it as a caricature, as that is the only class of writing it qualifies as.

Okey, from image it's understandable seeing glaring nonsense, but you at least attempt some semblance of a decent response on occasion (seems virtually every programmer does, perhaps it's the training), even if poor.

Now please try again, and start with pointing out why you think it a poor analogy. Thanks

Yes, Santa may not give me any toys come Xmas if I show

Whatever makes you happy ghost

^^^^
No

ghostofsparta: How dare you use blanks (bean bullets) to nullify my claim.

Oh! So you understand the concept of insulting one's intelligence. Progress.

So, considering all that's been said, how dare post this;

ghostofsparta: Wiegraf, I wonder what you'd say if you saw a native masquerade, in vanish right in front of you, live and direct and re-appear back at that same spot. This will be displayed for you in the public, not close quarters. Better still, you yourself if willing will be rendered with the ability. We call it Aferi and Egbe. I hereby invite you to come witness yourself an afajo in action; someone who would do some mumbo jumbo over the soil, and minutes later rain would begin to pour and when undone, it immidi stops. Ofcourse you can use science to rationalize that, then what rationale can science proffer to explain the same rain pouring and it won't touch you, me and the afajo right there on the spot where it is mumbo jumbo is done. Some mumbo jumbo object will be placed inside your vehicle and asked to start it, it won't unless removed. These ones aren't even the malevolent types, I classify them under ambivalent types in my research work, incase you're wondering there are the benevolent types too.

Brb

And expect a thinking man to take you seriously?? Do I look like an xtian, or even re.tarded??

I shall keep things simple, so this isn't the full picture (the actual situation in those story books is much worse actually). It will suffice though.

I create a lion.

I drop it in the jungle.

I tell it it can do as it pleases.

Lion kills a few wildebeest (it's what lions naturally do after all, and I full well know that, of course)

I return and punish the lion grievously and horrendously..... for doing exactly what I told it to do; what it pleases.

Do you see the problems here?

I'm not sure as to why you're all so hard on onyfrank. At least he's courteous. He's just being a good xtian, consider zombies and talking donkeys.

I'll leave this here.

Deep Sight: Please respond to this post.

In se does............not exist.

It's all subjective.

Deep Sight: ^^^ Whoops, and what that translates to, is that genocide may be morally wrong today, but morally right tomorrow, no?

And this makes sense to you?

Looks right to me though. Genocide is considered morally right today actually, see xtians for instance.

Humanity has generally been working its way towards more 'progressive' morals regardless. Most of us value being 'nice', we simply shoot ourselves in the foot a few times too often. Science and education have drastically cut down the rate at which we do that though.

btw, no gods needed. You think we can't manage even that? Your faith in humanity troubles me. What did we ever do to you?

Mr Troll: what!? you heathen!

he used a school boys lunch to feed 5000 men not counting women(seemed then that women were not worth counting )

Yet you dared argue with me when I pointed out superman is faster than a speeding bullet? It's written there in my comics...

Deep Sight: Well the simple point you miss is that what is being discussed here is human morality, and not nature's morality, or lack thereof.

Goooooot

Deep Sight: 1. Is there a difference between mala in se and mala prohibita or not?

Not really, no. Seems to be a scale issue or something similar disguised as something else. Bottom line is societies, individuals, etc, decide on these things.

Deep Sight: 2. Are they not both "as determined by a society" or not?

All morality is (and by individuals as well)

Deep Sight: 3. Do you believe there was nothing morally wrong with Aztec human sacrifice, since it was sanctioned by the society? Be explicit with your answer. Do not be vague, or try to escape. Yea or nay.

Why would I?

NO.... however, that's just me. Ultimately just my opinion as it depends on what I value, see? And what I value is..... subjective.

Other people easily use 'it was sanctioned by society' and depending on what they value they can be justified, simple.

You yourself recently used something similar to 'sanctioned by society', so it would be a wee bit hypocritical to criticize them (note we all must do this though, one way or the other). You mentioned that religion curbs excesses in societies therefore it is of some good. You neglect that one could easily disagree with you on what this greater good is. Your value of something does not make it universally good, at all, just as the majority's value do not make a position universally good. Scale is ultimately irrelevant.

For instance I'm quite sure the meat you eat would much rather value being alive than dead, but because you're stronger you impose your will on it, no? Who are you to state that it is absolutely right for you to live at the expense of the suffering of other living beings?? Exactly how is the prey's case less valid than the predator's? They are simply protecting what they value. Same thing within a species or any community/population, etc.

Aztecs can easily invoke their greater good or happiness, etc etc. Wouldn't be natural to me but doesn't make my case intrinsically better regardless of the various arguments.

Deep Sight: 4. Do you believe there was nothing morally wrong, with the practice of killing off twins and other multiple-born children in parts of pre-colonial Nigeria - since it was sanctioned by the society? Be explicit with your answer. Do not be vague, or try to escape. Yea or nay.

See above.

And don't ignore the cancer colonials brought, along with the good inherent locally as well. Mind you, all this still remains subjective...... We speak of what is natural, as adjudged by us....

EDITS!! Wasn't paying attention. Point 3 and 4

@ihe, so god can make 1 + 1 = 3?

Logicboy03: Your time is coming soon.......enjoy your lies and sophistry while you can.

Where do you see sophistry anywhere? Sophistry is clever. This is lalalalalala

This straw you grasp, don't think it will be enough if that's all you have to use to breathe underwater.

It says as adjudged by a society, as what feels natural to them, simple, not what is universally natural. There is clearly no such thing. What is natural to a pride of lions isn't so to a community of humans. What is natural to a single lion etc isn't so to a pride sef. It used to be natural for indas or Mayans, I forget which, to sacrifice a vir.gin or two to appease gods. Today's societies? Not so much.

You start claiming you have some sort of superior morality next we know it is what is natural to deep sight. Deep sight doesn't like homosexuals therefore homosexuality is bad! How objective!

Get off it. And don't be so scared, humanity has been running fine without gods for quite some time now, and most of us are happy with the direction we're headed. I mean, we know abhor god sanctioned slavery, no?

Ihedinobi: Lol. Nothing's wrong with me, dude. The question has been gibberish from the first time he asked it. And I explained why. If you consider my response gibberish, it's up to you to explain why.

How does it not matter? If there is no causal relationship between what God knows and the choices we make, how is that question meaningful? That you insist that it doesn't matter does not make it not matter.

Erm, that you insist that it matters does not make it matter. Where exactly did he ask you about causality?? What does that have to do with anything? You're tossing in a red herring and then using it as an excuse to bail out....

I, personally, have told you this how many times now? Let alone the doubtless others who point this out to you as well, you still pretend to not grasp something so simple. It's totally irrelevant to the point, as if the future is absolutely fixed, then god has no freewill as well, else he'll invalidate omniscience. What sort of omniscient is wrong?? (what sort of omnipotent cannot be wrong if he wants to as well? Una wharrgarbl ehhh...)

Simple. God is subject to the laws of logic and nature, just as 1+1 !=3 regardless of whatever god does, he would not posses freewill in this scenario. Nothing he can will or do about that without violating omniscience. He wouldn't be able to will anything at all actually, just follow the script. The future must play out as predicted regardless of any will, requiring no agency from anyone.

Now, your post becomes gibberish, as it has nothing to do with this. You also seem to be implying free will is necessary for something, I'm not even sure what as again it's irrelevant. Whatever it is, you're begging the question; freewill from where? You need to show free will exists first before whatever whargarbl you want to invoke makes any sense.

It's a basic ABC, so, please do explain exactly what in the universe causality has to do with anything?

Again, simple question; must god's foreknowledge come to pass? Yes or no will suffice.


And I'll leave with this, as you're obviously bent on LALALALAing this away (you've been doing so for about a year now, no reason to believe you'll stop now). From what I understand (read; layman) this universe isn't deterministic. What that means is that if one could manage the magic that is a time machine and traveled back in it, he'd likely end up in a different past. Even if he did somehow end up in the same timeline and did not interact with anyone anywhere, causing no paradoxes like say killing his grand parents therefore preventing his own birth, even if he did nothing at all but observe, he would still view a different future. While this is not directly relevant, ponder on that and its implications. And no, this does not support free will in any manner, random != free will. The point is to show you what a universe that supports free will be like. At any given time the actors should be able to change the script...

ghostofsparta: Wiegraf, which law of physics can explain a goat tied down and pumped with pellets, instead of tearing to shreds, the ruminant just they writhe about in pain. Or throwing something up and commanded to remain there with incantations and charm.

Sensible hypothesis is.......human folly. Simple. People shoot themselves all the time, of course with (still painful) blanks etc. Guns misfire, people see what they want to see, whatever whatever.

Simple human folly. Or would you consider all those dudes that catch bullets with their teeth as supernatural as well? You're on your own there.

Let's not even get into levitation tricks.

ghostofsparta: BTW, let's forget all those Derren Brown, David Copperfield and Chris Angel feats, we a know their technique doesn't involve the supernatural, they are premeditated tricks which are perfectly staged and professionally delivered.

Erm, no. If they claimed their powers were supernatural you would be bandwagonning their $hit as well. That is exactly the point.

Their feats are even more impressive then the ones you claim are supernatural. You state one can glue your hand to a floor? I show how one makes another so rigid he's able suspend like a plank midair supported on just points on his neck and feet, and apparently indefinitely (supposedly in the old days, before their own jazzmen owned up, when they did the trick they sometimes left the poor subjects suspended for days.. though considering hypnosis they might not even feel a thing). That's far more 'magnetic' than your stick your hand to the floor claim, yet here it is demonstrated, naturally.

Now, considering tricks like these are natural, exactly why in the world do you expect me to think even simpler tricks are supernatural? Why?? What's more likely to occur, the laws of physics breaking down or human folly??

And let's not forget, you brought up 'magnetic' hands, don't try to dismiss it as irrelevant.

ghostofsparta: The thing is none of you African atheists have seen or experienced genuine supernatural magic that defy all reason and scientific logic and here I am offering an opportunity to bear witness to one where hence we can collectively focus our energy in to understand what sort of force and or energy is involved that is unknown to modern science. How can it be harnessed and used to better our failing society. Check my footnote signature na. But all of you just yari kpata kpata. Una too like arguing.

"Magic" isn't native to africa alone, all of this has been done before. Oyinbo has simply outgrown that, now they reap the fruits of being rational.

Extraordinary claims of this nature have always been later shown to be nonsense, through history. Just as god was chased from rocks to the sky to nothingnesseses as science catches up, same with jazzman claims. You might as well worship the jewish zombie. Same $hit.

Actually, most jazzman claims have been demonstrably seen and done, so why exactly do you still believe them??

Good luck with your search though. You might find someone who believes his $hit is science, genuinely, but even at that...well....

ghostofsparta: Please let's focus on those first, if you give me a sensible hypothesis, I would accept it or modify it, if be, or look for another. There are lots more I need scientific explanation for. I like Folykaze hypothesis for the explanation of ayeta, I have a better one. But the one where the projectiles touches the body and drops is what I'm asking you wiegraf, even if you don't believe because you haven't seen it, just let me know whay you or any other scientific minded thinker think.

See above.

Ihedinobi: Have you been following our convo? If you have you shouldn't be saying that.

I told him earlier when he asked this question that as long as there is no cause-effect relationship between God's omniscience and man's power of choice, the question is meaningless or gibberish. Having showed that God's knowledge does not affect human action/inaction and vice versa, what is the point of asking me again how God's knowledge interacts with human will?

What exactly is wrong with you? Your reply is gibberish yet you call the question gibberish??

Simple question, yes or no?? Must god's foreknowledge come to pass?

The bolded doesn't matter. At all....

Jump to roughly ~30 - 40 mins to see someone loose the ability to move a lot more than just his hands... after hearing mumbo jumbo as well


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPsUJbJaKhE

More shenanigans


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1iIvk9PlkE

Conning 'experts', from ~10 - ~20 mins he converts skeptics to xtians.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MT3izBQfh5M

All these are highly recommended to everyone

Kudos

Joshthefirst: no its not sir. Its not. Its actually proven by hard facts that apes become men, that you are a sophisticated robot created by non-directed randomnesssssesssss.

when did I mock him?
Sorry oga. I couldn't resist replying the stupidity inherent in your post. I couldn't believe others hadn't seen it too.

Hearsay schmellsay.

Deep sight makes some statements about stoopidity inherent in my post.

You show up, suddenly thinking you know what you're on about, and call me stoopid and foo.lish.

Joshthefirst: "You can always discard hearsay" says the foolish person who believes his ancestors were apelike men and he is a machine created by non-directed randomness.
Smh.

And that's hearsay?

Josh, it's not by force to post. If you must, there are many other threads where m.orons of your calibre are having discussions on your level. Eg onyfranks water cycle thread, where you dared mock him despite your believing in Jewish zombies and talking snakes.

What is wrong with you?

Assuming your data is accurate op, first up, you do realize your issue is with folk that want to die, eg some brands of nihilists, yes? Or you can show me atheist doctrine which mandates we commit suicide? I can show you doctrine that encourages one to suicide though. Simply look at medieval japan and harakiri or muslims and 72 vir.gins. See? Atheism has absolutely nothing of the sort, so I fail to see the problem here. Their decisions to was theirs and theirs alone. Looks like a contradiction? It isn't.

If you're looking for why they did it mind you, you post they have "less contact with family members", etc etc. I hope religiosity isn't responsible for that, hmm?

Before any si.lly 'holier than thou' as well, not that I necessarily agree with their position, but you do know that contrary to your beliefs living might not be a 'blessing' or whatever nonsense you'd like to spout. I could even argue that some xtians/etc stay alive needlessly, when a graceful end would be much better. I, for instance, would rather be dead than completely paralyzed. My position.

The talk of not having as many children as religious, hope you're not insinuating that's some sort of crime? Else...well

And you post bits about atheist 'anger', really? After I posted all those nice charts showing the rates of violent crime and religosity? We have people on this board claiming they would happily watch people burn for eternity, singing and dancing next door, if that isn't anger I wonder what is. Certainly isn't love. Those forcing people to go through pregnancies, etc etc. I would much rather take atheist 'anger' than that nonsense, thank you.