₦airaland Forum

hupernikao:
Thanks.

You are welcome

hupernikao:
Your thesis above are more premised on creation to ascertain God whereas that same God is ever present around you. Why have to travel centuries back looking for God at creation when he is very much available even in our age. I will allow this to rest.


Now, get this well
Science, observation, evidences are so good and has given us most of the best of things.

But see. The science you see today, is still very much in its tender age, in embryo to knowing or finding God.

If science is to detect God by tools, it will take it more than a billion year to come to grow to that level of technology. Because even as of now, there so much that exist in humanity that the best scientific tool or instrument are yet to know, find or explain.

But like I always say, science will grow and will surely find God even if it takes the eternity to restart again.

Appeal to ignorance.

Make a point without fallacies.

hupernikao:
1. Only a new student of the word will use any of your premise above as argument or likely the person decided to communicate to you in that lower form.

2. The proof you needed is what you aren't ready to study well. Bible is Theology.

Theo - God
Logy - Study

The study and revelation fo God.

So, if you chose to not open to proper learning of the Bible you won't find the answer your seek.

It is like a case of a man who want a proof that dream does exist but never want to sleep at all. Yet disbelief the ones (who believed dreams exist) who have slept and had dreams.

Such man will always have an argument to present always just as you do all times, but the honest truth is, he will never know nor believe that dreams exist as long as he refused to sleep nor believe those who have slept before.

The Bible is not proof, that's a fallacy of petitio principii.
Thr proof has to come from outside of the Bible because the Bible in itself has alot of unproven and disproven quotes. it's a fallacy

Please note that this thread is for people that are well grounded in philosophy and any fallacy shouldn't be made while making your points. Each of the arguments below aims to show that a particular set of gods does not exist—by demonstrating them to be inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts—or that there is insufficient proof to say that they do exist.

Empirical arguments
Empirical arguments depend on knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation to prove their conclusions.

The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures—such as the Hindu Vedas, the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, the Muslim Qur’an, the Book of Mormon or the Baha’i Aqdas—by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts.

The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.

The destiny of the unevangelized, by which persons who have never even heard of a particular revelation might be harshly punished for not following its dictates.

The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms, including humans, seem to exhibit poor design.

The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.

The argument from parsimony (using Occam’s razor) contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in God's, the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.

The analogy of Russell’s teapot argues that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the theist rather than the atheist. The Russell’s teapot analogy can be considered an extension of Occam’s Razor.

Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book the Grand Design that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. Both authors claim that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings. Some Christian philosophers disagree.
Deductive arguments
Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises.

The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to the argument from design. The argument from design claims that a complex or ordered structure must be designed. However, a god that is responsible for the creation of a universe would be at least as complicated as the universe that it creates. Therefore, it too must require a designer. And its designer would require a designer also, ad infinitum. The argument for the existence of God is then a logical fallacy with or without the use of special pleading. The Ultimate 747 gambit states that God does not provide an origin of complexity, it simply assumes that complexity always existed. It also states that design fails to account for complexity, which natural selection can explain.

The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: “Can God create a rock so big that He cannot move it?” or “If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than Himself?”
The omniscience paradox contests further problems between omnipotence and omniscience, such as a lack of ability to create something unknown to God.

The problem of hell is the idea that eternal damnation for actions committed in a finite existence contradicts God’s omnibenevolence or omnipresence.

The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will—or has allotted the same freedom to his creations—by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. According to the argument, if God already knows the future, then humanity is destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore, our free will contradicts an omniscient god. Another argument attacks the existence of an omniscient god who has free will directly in arguing that the will of God himself would be bound to follow whatever God foreknows himself doing throughout eternity.

A counter-argument against the Cosmological argument (“chicken or the egg”) takes its assumption that things cannot exist without creators and applies it to God, setting up an infinite regress. This attacks the premise that the universe is the second cause (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause).
Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable by scientific tests.

The anthropic argument states that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect, He would have created other morally perfect beings instead of imperfect humans.

Inductive arguments
Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

The atheist-existential argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states that if existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. It is touched upon by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness. Sartre’s phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie‘s novel Grimus: “That which is complete is also dead.”
The “no reason” argument tries to show that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically by creating the universe, because it would have no needs, wants, or desires since these very concepts are subjectively human. Since the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist. This argument is expounded upon by Scott Adams in the book God’s Debris, which puts forward a form of Pandeism as its fundamental theological model. A similar argument is put forward in Ludwig von Mises‘s “Human Action”. He referred to it as the “praxeological argument” and claimed that a perfect being would have long ago satisfied all its wants and desires and would no longer be able to take action in the present without proving that it had been unable to achieve its wants faster—showing it imperfect.
The “historical induction” argument concludes that since most theistic religions throughout history (e.g. ancient Egyptian religion, ancient Greek religion) and their gods ultimately come to be regarded as untrue or incorrect, all theistic religions, including contemporary ones, are therefore most likely untrue/incorrect by induction. It is implied as part of Stephen F. Roberts’ popular quotation:
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Subjective arguments
Anecdotal evidence
Similar to the subjective arguments for the existence of God, subjective arguments against the supernatural mainly rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, or the propositions of a revealed religion in general.
The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and from the past, who disbelieve or strongly doubt the existence of God.
The conflicted religions argument notes that many religions give differing accounts as to what God is and what God wants; since all the contradictory accounts cannot be correct, many if not all religions must be incorrect. The disappointment argument claims that if, when asked for, there is no visible help from God, there is no reason to believe that there is a God.

Omniscience and freewill are incapatible.
There's no need for big grammars and long articles.

Religion is just ridiculous and that's not surprising

TenQ:
Craving the elusive relevance the best way he knows how!
LOL!!

Please, go and sleep.

What relevance?

You think I care about someone who doesn’t know basic laws of motion?

You wish

TenQ:
Thats why your words match who you are in its worthlessness!

Oga you no sabi science abeg.
Continue your Mumu points and arguements but stop talking about science. I will correct you if I spot another scientific blunder.
Na only vex you to vex, u no go kill me

Lawrence Krauss always say that if you remove all the particles in the universe, the remainder will still weigh something, meaning that nothing still weighs something.

He uses it to justify the argument that the universe can come from nothing since nothing still weigh something.

TenQ:
LOL!
You are worth NOTHING of value!!
and
that's full the truth!!!

I know, just because I always show how illiterate you are

A001:
Lols. He's not worthy of getting a reply from me any longer. It's a waste of time engaging such a blockhead.

Lol, he’s interested in just winning and not more.
Just ignore him

TenQ:
I love how you have simply described yourself!

Ts you who don’t know basic science.

I don’t want to ever see you use that archaic law of motion to describe the universe. Ignoramus

A001:
Lols. Na sorry case. I don commot my hand from the guy matter

He's arrogantly ignorant and inexorably so.

Shey u see why people stay away from him now?
He's a pandemic of ignorance and scientific illiteracy.

The worst of all is that he says these nonsense with confidence

A001:
Lols. Microbes, viruses aren't things? They're not living things microscopic in nature?

It seems your problem is more serious than I thought. Even a word as simple as things, you don't know it's meaning.

SMH.

This ludicrous post only shows how Nigeria's education system has sunk so low in quality.

Workch, see your guy embarrassing himself in public

I don't have time to educate a perpetual ignoramus

I am just having a laugh and showing my little son on how not to be an arrogant illiterate in future.

IMAliyu:
@Workch let me add one more fallacy that I've been trying to quantify, but I've had no luck in identifying.

It's the "You know deep inside" argument.

Like "You know deep inside you boko haram are right, but you are afraid to admit it" an exaggerated example but this is the common formula.
Some one will project or try to implant a position or thought you don't have inside your head. It's a tactic used most commonly by cult leaders.

It should be fallacy of false assumption

BabaCommander:
What's the trill that come with the hunt if the game is tied to a tree already?

Whats the benefit of hunting tirelessly when you are just set an ambush for the prey to come to you?

TenQ:
You can see that their foolishness has shut them up.
Birds of the same feather....

Your type:
Feigning knowledge yet so ignorant: the kind of knowledge that makes a full grown man to be confused about his gender.
Yet, truly knowledgeable people don't ever make the mistake of getting a cockerel to lay eggs!
SMH!!

I don’t know much, it’s impossible to know all. But it’s good to always want to accept corrections.
You lack that quality. You are ignorant and incorrigible.
That’s a disease dude

SportsHD:
Chasing a woman seems like a fruitless effort to me. Get them attracted to you instead. They're over 100 million women in Nigeria at the moment.

i swear, I can never chase a woman in my life.
Before I woo you, it means that I have seen all the green lights. The light sef don blind me

Why waste valuable time chasing a girl that doesn’t want you in the first place when many will gladly accept you?

Drella:
If I ask you out, you must reply me the next minute.No wasting time,I got other girls to woo too!

you be lesbian?

Guys still dey chase girls?

Na me dey even run from girls sef. Comport yourself, na girls go come for you stylishly

A001:
Yea, you're right. But the author used the phrase to refer to the origin of the Big Bang.

How else can he make such a reference without the phrase?

Seriously I don’t know, that’s why it’s a mystery

hupernikao:
You should be listening, get a pen and be taking notes from the person you just quoted. I hope you see his intelligent question. Not the one will be asking that a snake is talking or animal going into ark. That is for the children.


So, take a side seat talk less and start learning.

I am with a pen ready to take down all the possible fallacies you about to commit.

I will spot them at every point

A001:
Could our Universe be Someone’s Chemistry Project?

It is a pivotal time for astrophysicists, cosmologists, and philosophers alike. In the coming years, next-generation space and ground-based telescopes will come online that will use cutting-edge technology and machine learning to probe the deepest depths of the cosmos.

What they find there, with any luck, will allow scientists to address some of the most enduring questions about the origins of life and the Universe itself.

Alas, one question that we may never be able to answer is the most pressing of all: if the Universe was conceived in a Big Bang, what was here before that?

According to a new op-ed by Prof. Abraham Loeb (which recently appeared in Scientific American), the answer may be stranger than even the most “exotic” explanations.

As he argued, the cosmos as we know it may be a “baby Universe” that was created by an advanced technological civilization in a lab!

As the former chair (2011-2020) of the astronomy department at Harvard University, the founding director of Harvard’s Black Hole Initiative (BHI), the director of the Institute for Theory and Computation (ITC) at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), and one of the chief researchers with the Galileo Project, Loeb is no stranger to “exotic” theories about advanced intelligence and cosmic origins.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--jeD7TG2Us

His credentials also include chairing the National Academies’ Board on Physics and Astronomy, the advisory board for Breakthrough Starshot, and being a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

He is also the author of the bestselling book “Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth,” which addressed the possibility that the interstellar object ‘Oumuamua was an artificial probe.

This time around, it’s the foundations of the Universe itself (and whether or not aliens may have been involved) that have attracted Loeb’s interest.

For starters, there have been many conjectures as to what might have existed before the Big Bang. Some of the more well-known examples include that the Universe emerged from a vacuum fluctuation or that it is a cyclic process with repeated periods of contraction and expansion – Big Bang, Big Crunch, repeat.

There is even the notion that the Universe was born from matter collapsing inside a black hole in another Universe, which then rebounded to form the other side of the Einstein–Rosen bridge (a “wormhole”) where our Universe was conceived.

A similar version of this argument states that the Big Bang could have been a supermassive “white hole” that formed from a supermassive black hole (SMBH) in our parent universe.

Yet another theory is that our Universe is a consequence of the string theory interpretation of the multiverse, where infinite Universes coexist, and every possibility plays out an infinite number of times.

According to Loeb, this could take the form of our Universe being created in a laboratory by an advanced civilization.

“Since our universe has a flat geometry with a zero net energy, an advanced civilization could have developed a technology that created a baby universe out of nothing through quantum tunneling.”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhFK5_Nx9xY

In the context of quantum physics, tunneling refers to a phenomenon where a wave function can propagate through a potential barrier.

This plays an essential role in physical phenomena, ranging from nuclear fusion and tunneling electron microscopes to quantum computing.

Unfortunately, the Standard Model of particle physics models cannot resolve how quantum mechanics and gravity interact, hence why a Theory of Everything (ToE) is still lacking.

However, a sufficiently advanced species may have already developed a ToE and the technology for creating baby Universes.

In essence, this theory offers a possible origin story that appeals to the religious notion of a creator and the secular notion of quantum gravity alike.

It suggests that a Universe like our own – which hosts at least one civilization (i.e., us) – is like a biological system that reproduces over generations. As Loeb explained to Universe Today via email:

"It explains the Big Bang as an infinite series of baby universes born inside each other, just like chicks hatching out of eggs and laying new eggs later in their life.

" If something predated this series of generations – it would have been something else, just as in the ‘chicken and egg dilemma.'”

This is reminiscent of the Kardashev Scale, which characterizes civilizations by Type (I, II, and III) based on the amount of energy they can harness.

Whereas Type Is are able to harness the energy of their entire planet, Type II civilizations can harness the energy of their whole star systems, and Type IIIs can harness the energy of their entire galaxy. In this case, says Loeb, the metric is a civilization’s ability to reproduce the astrophysical conditions that led to their existence.

For some, this whole Baby Universe theory might sound similar to the Zoo Hypothesis – a proposed resolution to the Fermi Paradox.

But as Loeb explained, there’s a fundamental difference between the two:

“The Zoo is a place where you watch the animals, but a baby universe cannot be observed from the outside according to General Relativity, Einstein’s theory of gravity.

The interior of the baby universe disappears from view of the creator and snaps out of the creator’s spacetime.

The situation is analogous to the formation of a black hole, where all the matter that falls into it cannot be observed once it enters the black hole horizon.

“As a result the creator of the baby universe will never know which type of civilization formed in it and will also not be able to intervene. Creating a baby universe might not consume energy because the negative gravitational energy cancels out the positive energy of matter and radiation in our universe, which is characterized by a flat geometry.

“The fate of our Universe is completely independent of the baby universe, just as the history of a person that enters the event horizon of a black hole has no influence on us. Based on everything we know, our own universe will expand forever.”

Another appealing feature of this theory is the way it’s free of anthropic reasoning, which essentially states that the Universe was selected for us to exist in.

Formally known as the Anthropic Principle, this stands in opposition to the Copernican Principle (or Cosmological Principle) that asserts that there is nothing special or unique about humanity or the space we occupy in the Universe.

However, the mere fact that slight variations in the laws of physics would rule out life would seem to suggest that we are fortunate.

In recent years, it has been suggested that multiverse theory is a possible resolution for the Anthropic Principle.

The Baby Universe theory is consistent with this idea, as it theorizes that the Universe gives rise to advanced civilizations that are drivers of a cosmic Darwinian selection process.

At present, humanity is not advanced enough to replicate the cosmic conditions that led to our existence.

Whereas a civilization that could recreate these cosmic conditions (i.e., produce a “baby Universe” in a laboratory) would fall into class A on this proposed cosmic scale, a class B civilization could adjust the conditions in its immediate environment to be independent of its host star.

Given our present situation, humanity is currently a class C or D since we cannot recreate the habitable conditions on our planet (when our Sun dies) and are carelessly destroying planet Earth through climate change.

But eventually, humanity may reach the point where we become a class A civilization and can partake in the hypothesized process of cosmic reproduction.

Who knows? Maybe we will even be able to create a baby Universe that is an improvement over our own. Loeb contends that such hopes may be a tad optimistic but that the prospect for cosmic procreation presents some very inspiring possibilities:

"We are getting close to producing synthetic life in our laboratories. Once we will understand how to unify quantum mechanics and gravity, we might know how to make a baby universe in the laboratory.

The ethics of making another universe would be similar to making another human being...

“But ultimately, it would be flattering to our species if the abilities that past generations assigned to God, namely creating a universe and creating life in it, will be at our disposal as an advanced scientific civilization.

If another civilization that predated us by a billion years had reached that goal already and we will encounter it one day, then that civilization will be a good approximation to what our past religions regarded as God.”

Source: https://www.universetoday.com/153107/could-our-universe-be-someones-chemistry-project/amp/

Further reading: https://www.scientificamerican.com./article/was-our-universe-created-in-a-laboratory/

What we know is that, there’s nothing like “before Big Bang”.

It doesn’t make any sense in physics to say “before Big Bang”, unless in the light of big bounce which we are yet to get any evidence for.

TenQ:
If you cannot present a unified theory of physics in a phrase or sentence, please keep your mouth shut as you are confused!

Whatever, 3 people already corrected you on this thread.
Just stop talking about science, you are illiterate

TenQ:
A wise person will not only shout "two legs bad, four legs good" but will present the UNIFIED laws in one single phrase and the case would be settled.

BTW: Dtruthspeaker is a physicist I should have spoken to him with all the required supporting EQUATIONS and theorems
SMH!

There is nothing like unified law of physics yet.
Just stop using the archaic Newtonian laws to make whatever point you want to make, that law is myopic and only works on earth. It breaks down in most parts of space. Take the correction and move on.

I don’t know who’s asking you about unified law of physics here.

TenQ:
The law of Physics Workch say: to every action, their is a NO commensurate (opposite) Reaction
In layman's terms, everything many things have a NO cause!

I have rephrased it since the former make no sense to you.

Good night

Your problem is that you don’t want to learn.
How can you be using Newton’s laws of motion to demonstrates stuffs in the universe? It doesn’t work there, it will give you wrong values.
Even the more sophisticated theory of relativity breaks down in the quantum world. It’s like you still live in the 19th century.

TenQ:
The law of Physics say: to every action, their is a commensurate (opposite) Reaction
In layman's terms, everything has a cause

Freewill:
A man's Freedom to exercise his power to choose his cause of action within available options and its associated external constraints.
If your definition of freewill is different from this, then you use a wrong yardstick to judge what you probably do not understand.

Even animals have their own freewill!

Consciousness produces a WILL, EMOTION and INTELLECT.
With this consciousness, you are the CAUSE of the effect of your freewill and Consciousness!

If everything has a cause, the question is WHO is behind the cause?
Is it God?
Is it Man?
Is it the law of Nature?

We are the cause of what we do
We may not be the cause of what befalls us

You lack basic physics knowledge, this law breaks down at high speed and enormous gravity.

You have started with your junk physics again. Have you ever heard of theory of relativity? If you have then you won’t be using Newtonian law do describe what happens in the universe but of course, you are scientifically illiterate.

LordReed:
This question is for the theists who say everything has a cause and also believe they have free will. Can you explain how everything having a cause does not lead to determinism, a situation where everything is already determined by what came before it. As opposed to your belief that we have freewill. How can we have freewill if whatever we do had a cause and that cause also had a cause which also had a cause and so on?

I hope you are not hoping to get answers with reason from any theist here?

Theism lack reasoning by default, so expect them to shift the goal post forever

A001:
I think so.

Most definitely, that’s the closes object we have to the sun.

A001:
The most detailed image of the sun. Nature is amazingly beautiful!
Image Credit: NASA

must have been taken by Parker solar probe

IMAliyu:
Went on about this with him some time back.
He's a lost cause.


It's like saying Steve Jobs loved the iPhone so much he sacrificed his son for it. The equivalency doesn't work.

lol

Hundredfold4lif:
Nonsense!
Science is a religion that is terribly afraid of GOD.
Anything GOD perplexes science!
Do you know why?
Because science can't exist without GOD! How? Science is dead without men created by GOD!
GOD made man; man made science!!!

That is a Whataboutism fallacy.

It is on the list. I’m right after all

Lordsonn:
There are a lot of benefits for men:
1) If your wife died, all her properties belong to you.
2) If your wife dies, you are the one to decide where and how to bury your wife, not her family members.
3) Court wedding stops every family members from interfering in your marriage matter. The parents of your wife do not have a say in anything that concerns your marriage.
4) Court wedding take away every responsibility to your in-law from you. You are not under any obligation to buy anything for your in-law or do anything during burial of any of them
5) Whoever interfere in your marriage relationship is liable to 3 months imprisonment including your wife's mother.
6) If the husband dies, the properties automatically belongs to the wife and children. No family member will come and reap where they did not sow. Even the father of the husband have no say in the properties of the deceased person.

I did Court wedding and I'm enjoying it. Christmas is coming, I have no responsibility to give anything to in-laws and I mean it. I don't even go to greet them and don't want them in my house, because it is not a statutory obligation under the marriage Act.

This is like the little crumbs you get for being a slave.