₦airaland Forum

.

Since I am not voting for him, no need to answer

drlateef:
You have no brain at all. Call your fellow zombidiots to lend you some grey matter. Who’s talking about federal revenue. We are talking about creating jobs, easing the burden of petrol subsidy through the refinery and many other economic opportunities for the state and federation at large. You are so daft with your response. Please don’t respond if you can’t think deeply about what you are writing.

Stop crying, your nonsense lies has been busted

Midehi3:
Oh, APC urchin, bye bye dear

I am not an APC supporters

Midehi3:
Lol @credible election have you seen what happened in Osun?

yes, what's wrong with it?

So if APC doesn't win then it's credible?

Ajomulala:
I was passing through somewhere in my area one day and then I came across a baba ijebu shop owner using a solar power to power his shop. Then I stopped and asked him how much he got it, he told me the amount he bought it. He said monthly sub is 4k he said he used to subscribe it monthly.

I have a plan to buy a solar power this coming month so I want to know...... do they use to subscribe solar power?

Please I need this answer urgently

yes, I work for a solar energy company and our product is on subscription basis.
You cannot use it unless you have subscription on it, It was probably our product that you saw.
We are the top solar subscription plan providers in the country

LordReed:
An agnostic atheist. Though these days I can't help but feel like an igtheist.

okay, great

He's not going to involve himself in vote buying

Midehi3:
But it is affecting the common man, i have been searching for new notes since morning till now none


How are we sure the hoarders/politicians have not collected all the new notes from all these corrupt bank MDs, managers CBN said there is enough notes, bank says no enough new notes in circulation

is it betrer to suffer for one month in other or have credible election that can decide your 8years?

For the first time, I have to agree with Buhari

IMAliyu:
I've read through the thread and I don't fully understand the disagreement between you workch.

Agnosticism and Atheistism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

A statement like, I don't know if any deity(s) exist, but I don't believe in any because "insert reason here". Is possible.

As for the plausibility of the existence of a singular deistic god over multiple, I think this is more of a subject of individual bias.

workch is correct in his statement that it's not possible to invalidate the deistic god claim, as no disprovable or narratively contradictory attributes are assigned to it.
But this is a matter of the claim being made.
Someone could equally create a similar claim to the deistic god's, but just add the possiblity of there being multiple gods and that wouldn't be any less disprovable, as long as no narratives or attributes are assigned to them.

A statement like "multiple beings with power and knowledge beyond what any human brain could ever grasp, were responsible for constructing our reality"
This to me would be indistinguishable from the deistic god claim, and is equal plausible and undisprovable.

I am tired of arguing with him.

It's not gonna end, he likes long unending arguments

Bacteriologist:
Like I said, there are gods that can be demonstrated to not exist based on logical inconsistencies.

But broadly speaking, I would agree. "Based on available evidence" is a valid caveat.

all gods can be demonstrated not to exist except from certain concepts of deistic gods

Bacteriologist:
Correct. But you have completely gone off the rails here my friend.

I am neutral because:

"There is no current evidence for or against god"

IS DIFFERENT FROM

"I am neutral because it is impossible to provide evidence for or against god."

The latter is your initial position. Kindly stay on it and don't deflect to the former.

And FYI, there are gods that can be shown to not exist as a result of logical contradictions.

it's more like, I am neutral because ntheres no evidence for or against God and its impossible to know if God exist or not based on available evidence.

LordReed:
It would be an agnostic answer and that's exactly the kind of answer I would give about the subject of the existence of gods.

okay, i thought you were an atheist

Bacteriologist:
I know how time travel works. You're making this assumption based on our current understanding of science. A human living before planes were invented would also give you the mathematical impossibility of why a Metal couldn't possibly be suspended in air using density equations.

Like I said, all that's required is a breakthrough in science and time travel in any manner could be possible. It's all about keeping an open mind. Skepticism does not teach close mindedness.

And the fact that it is possible for evidence for god to be provided does nothing to invalidate the claim of an atheist. An atheist, quite simply, suspends belief until evidence is provided. So, the fact that evidence for god has not been provided (yet) very well justifies the position of the atheist.

As usual, all your claims of something being impossible doesn't mean they actually are. You seem to be confusing "improbable" with "impossible." Please look into the difference of these two terms.

I am making my assumption based on the current available evidence. The difference is evidence for or against. Skepticism means that you follow the evidence no matter what.

We have evidence That you cannot travel at the speed of light or see anything beyond big bang. There are proofs even in mathematics for that.


There's none for or against God. That's the difference for me.

Another example is, it's impossibe for someone to enter a wall, we have evidence for this. We can test it.

We cannot test "God exist or God doesn't exist" its why I am neutral

LordReed:
Because you said no one can know, that is not something that can be determined at the moment.

No I don't know. It doesn't look possible because of the energy required but who knows there might be work arounds we don't know about yet

if I ask you if a God exist and you give this second answer, would that not be pure Agnosticism?

Bacteriologist:
Just because you think something is impossible doesn't mean it actually is. Skepticism teaches never to be 100% certain about anything.

So it's possible that a God exist l?

100 years ago the humans of the time would have said it was "practically impossible" to suspend a 5000kg piece of metal in the air. Today, we have airplanes.

does this also apply to God?

Even the idea of smartphones would have been totally impossible to humans living as early as 30 years ago. Today we have chatGPT.

It is self-absorbed to claim that just because evidence of a creator hasn't been provided now it never will. What you can do is argue for god being unlikely or why theists haven't provided evidence despite the time that they have had to do so.

atheism will be dead if you apply this logic to the existence of God

But it is ignorant to claim it is impossible to provide evidence for a God.

Everything cannot be possible, it's a fact. There are something that will be impossible, it's how the universe works.

Same with time travel, as science continues to discover new things and make bigger breakthroughs, who knows what is possible in the next 20 or 30 years.

sincerely, we have been doing trme travel since before the first MAN was lunched to space, but if you mean time travel like going back to live with dinosaur? That's fiction.
The layman's understandkng of time travel and that of science is different.

Agnosticism is a very valid position. I do agree with you on some level that we can never be too sure of anything and hard theists (that claim there is a god) and hard atheists (that claim there is no god) have the burden of proof.

But in the same vein, if you're truly trying to be as skeptical as possible, you cannot claim that it is impossible to prove god or in fact prove any other thing.

Trying to know what happened before big bang is like trying to move an object with mass at light speed.

It's not possible in mathematics, in reality or in anyway you want to think about it.

You know why? You will mathematically need infinte amount of energy to move any object, that is as little as 0.000000001 micrograms heavier than light photons at that same speed. It means that you need to use up all the energy in the universe and it will not still get at that speed.

Some things are impossible. Everything cannot be possible.

Same applies to looking back to before big bang, because "before big bang" doesn't not exist in science.
My point is, some things are impossible because repeatable evidence says so.

It's same reasons why I don't think the christian God is possible. Evidence says to

Maynman:
Where did i say he used fossils to proof evolution?
Can you screenshot it?

here.

This picture

Maynman:
Alright man, i also want to say that darwin worked on pre existing facts, evidences and he also craft his own evidences to arrive at his conclusions.

How does this mean that Darwin used fossils to proof evolution? Tell me

LordReed:
I don't know if no one can know but we don't right now so the best we can do is speculate. I just like my own speculations to have a bit of reality in them.

So why can't you just leave it at you don't know instead of you don't know if no one can know?

Secondly, do you know if we can travel at the speed of light?

Maynman:
Waiting

I take that back, darwin knew about fossils but darwin never knew how fossils got there.

The first person to argue fossils for evolution was lamarck. He did that more than 20years after Darwins death. I was wrong thee

Maynman:
Waiting

lol, this guys.

Atheists know how to ask for evidence, but they runway when you ask them too 😂😂

I'm sure that everyone will now see that Atheism is just same idea with theism but from an opposite angle.

Both runway from evidence when it's not in their Favour.

Bye dude

Maynman:
What year was fossils found?
Darwin didn’t know about fossils right?

show me where he linked evolution and fossil in the book

Maynman:
What year was fossils found?
Darwin didn’t know about fossils right?

just open the book and show me where he linked evolution with fossil


hey here, download the Darwins paper for natural selection.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.vliz.be/docs/Zeecijfers/Origin_of_Species.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjI1Lq9tur8AhUjgP0HHTvqD1oQFnoECAYQAg&usg=AOvVaw0uatI9ajtKJqqiZsJU-Q7e

Go through it and show me where he provided fossil evidence

Maynman:
Darwin didn’t know about fossils right?

hey here, download the Darwins paper for natural selection.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.vliz.be/docs/Zeecijfers/Origin_of_Species.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjI1Lq9tur8AhUjgP0HHTvqD1oQFnoECAYQAg&usg=AOvVaw0uatI9ajtKJqqiZsJU-Q7e

Go through it and show me where he provided fossil evidence

Maynman:
Don’t believe me.
What year was fossils discovered again?

hey here, download the Darwins paper for natural selection.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.vliz.be/docs/Zeecijfers/Origin_of_Species.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjI1Lq9tur8AhUjgP0HHTvqD1oQFnoECAYQAg&usg=AOvVaw0uatI9ajtKJqqiZsJU-Q7e

Go through it and show me where he provided fossil evidence

Maynman:
Don’t believe me.
What year was fossils discovered again?

should I share a link to download Darwins original paper so you can show me?

Maynman:
Don’t “believe” me.
Read slowly.

is that from Darwins paper? On the origin of species?

If you point to anywhere on Darwin paper, where he used fossil evidence to demonstrate evolution, I will believe you.

I'm willing to change.

I can give you a link to download the paper

Maynman:
And i have proven to you that agnostics cherry pick when they use their logic.

If you show me evidence of Darwin using fossil to explain evolution in his paper, I will believe you.

Show me

Maynman:
So you have no evidence for your “deistic god”?

Agnostics are hypocrite oo

this was after Darwin, show me in the original paper, origin of species where darwin presrned fossil evidence.

If you show me, I will believe you

Maynman:
He did.

I have proven to you that both ahtiestd and theists will not provide evidence for their claims when questioned.

It's what you re doing