₦airaland Forum

Maynman:
Darwin provided tons of evidence for his hypothesis.
Where are the evidences of your deistic god?

No one believed darwin even in science until other scientist proved it with testable evidence.

Forget all these thing you are posting. Darwin made observations and it wa never a theory until he died

Maynman:
Darwin provided masses of evidence for his work, he didn’t make a blank statement calling it hypothesis.

Darwin provided mass observations and not evidence just like lamarck did.

Other scientists like Friedrich Miescher, mendel, Watson and crick etc provided empirical and testable evidence for evolution with discovery of nucleic acids, their structures and genetics. Darwin didn't provide any empirical evidence.

Maynman:
Darwin didn’t just wake up one day and make a statement calling it hypothesis.
He observed, experimented and used others people ideas to arrive at its conclusion.

Do you know scientific procedures?

Seems like you are not aware. What's you are showing me are darins observations and not his experimenrs and tests.

1. You make observations by looking at specimens, this is what Darwin did.
2. Then you create hypothesis from your observations. Darin propose evolution by natural selection after observing all these specimens.

3. Design an experiment to test your hypothesis. Darwin never did this. It was done years after he died

4. Design a method and theory to explain your results. Darwin never did this, it was done after he died.



If you disgaree when show me the experiment specifically attributed to Darwin in science.
4.

LordReed:
I don't understand what you are driving at.

What I am driving at is that, your analogy doesn't necessarily disprove the possibility of a frits cause.

I am not saying that a first cause necessarily exist but your analogy doesn't address that issue

Maynman:
Darwin didn’t just make a statement and call it hypothesis, how did darwin arrive at the conclusions?
He didn’t carry out experiments?

Darwin never provided evidence for evolution. Other scientists did it for him by testing his ideas.

Maynman:
Let’s start with charles darwin, what was his hypothesis? I’m sure he didn’t just give a blank statement, he showed workings of how he arrived at the hypothesis.

How did you arrive at a “deistic god”?

Darwin himself didn't prove his hypothesis, he had ideas from several species.

He couldn't prove that a species can change overtime through inheritance. He formulated the idea from his observations

Maynman:
Let’s start with charles darwin, what was his hypothesis? I’m sure he didn’t just give a blank statement, he showed workings of how he arrived at the hypothesis.

How did you arrive at a “deistic god”?

Darwin proposed that species can change over time, that new species come from pre-existing species, and that all species share a common ancestor and this happens via natural selection.

Darwin himself didn't prove this claim. Other scientists years after him did and there were things that he proposed that were disproven as well along the line.

Maynman:
Before you bring out the hypothesis you should first prove it works, if you can’t prove it then it doesn’t work, it’s not my job to prove if your hypothesis is wrong or right.


Now, can you design a test to defend your “deistic god”, after you do it then i can test your defence.

Nope, in science, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person who brought the hypothesis should test it.

Charles Darwin established the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection. He didn't prove it, other scientists tested it to prove it or disprove it. They found out that its true.

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was a hypothesis he never tested, other scientists tested the idea by designing experiments, they found that it's true.

Stephen hawking formulated hawking radiation, it was tested and validated after he had died.


So yes, one can drop a hypothesis and another people invalidate it. Often times, this happens in science.

So now, can you design an experiment to invalidate a deistic god hypothesis?

Maynman:
I get your point.
What I’m saying is before you make a statement you should have evidence for it, not you saying I should disprove your claim.

science is all about making informed statements called hypothesis and then to design an experiment to test those hypotheses.

It becomes a fact when that hypothesis has been proven true.
Without an experiment to falsify a hypothesis, you cannot say that the hypothesis is wrong or right.


Now, can you design a test to falsify a deistic god?

Maynman:
How did you arrive at saying “aliens”.
It’s like me saying there’s flying lion, and until you disproved it, then flying lion exist..
What did you see before making the claim that “aliens exist”.

and how did you know that flying lions cannot exist?
Have you searched all planets in the universe?

Maynman:
So anyone that claims to create the universe is a god?
You just need to claim it?

That's what people refer to as God generally and I don't know if such a thing exist.

Maynman:
How did you arrive at saying “aliens”.
It’s like me saying there’s flying lion, and until you disproved it, then flying lion exist..
What did you see before making the claim that “aliens exist”.

I didn't make a claim that aliens exist.

It seems you are not getting my point

Maynman:
If you claim something without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence too.

To start with what’s “god”?

God is probably someone who created the universe, that's a holistic definition.

Maynman:
If you claim something without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence too.

To start with what’s “god”?

True, but lack of evidence is not lack of existence.

You can say aliens exist without evidence, we can dismiss because of lack of evidence , but it doesn't mean aliens don't actually exist.

Maynman:
Then how did you arrive at this deistic god(gudan)?

I am not saying that a deistic god exist, I am saying that there's a claim that a deistic god exist, which is impossible to disprove.

So I don't know if God exist or not

Maynman:
If the universe has to be created, what created God?

When did I make a claim that the universe has to be created?

I don't know if the universe was created or not, it's impossible to know.

Bacteriologist:
You're committing what is known as the black Swan fallacy.

please kindly let me know how that's a black swan. I do not see how

How did you come to the conclusion that no evidence can be provided for god? Just because we see black swans everyday since history began and we haven't seen any white swans in Africa does not mean whute swans don't exist. There are white swans in Europe and Australia.

it's not black swan if it's a known fact that we cannot.
Let me give you an example: can humans ever build a device that can achieve speed of light? No, it's impossible, that's not black swan, it's only possible theoretical. Same applies to knowing if there's a creator.
Its practically impossible for humans to figure what happened before time and space was formed, which is why we cannot know if someone or something actually formed that singularity or not.
We cannot build a device capable of looking back in time to see beyond the beginning of big bang for mathematical provable reasons, just like traveling at the speed of light.
It's provable that we cannot know what happened before big bang, there even no before big bang from a human perspective. How can you even look back in time to know what happened then when even time didn't exist then? so it's not black swan.

In the same way:.
Just because there hasn't been any evidence for god to-date does not mean it is impossible to provide such evidence. If you claim this is truly the case you would have to demonstrate that with evidence.

The rational conclusion is to withhold belief until evidence is provided, correct. But it's equally irrational to claim no such evidence can ever be produced without backing it up.

This is why I think that theism and atheism are different side of same coin. Both commit fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

Both reach opposite conclusions on the basis of lack of evidence, but both do not have enough information to reach any conclusions.
I am convinced that Agnosticism is the best philosophy based on this fallacy

LordReed:
What it means is there could have been no first cause or that the concept is actually meaningless.

But If A can cause B and B can Cause A, it does not mean that C cannot cause A and B without A and B being unable to Casue C.


Now your quantum physics analysis is limited in this knowledge

KnownUnknown:
This post buttresses the point I made earlier that Agnostics still hold on to the god of whatever tradition they are used to while claiming they don’t know whether god exists. You come from a monotheist tradition therefore you don’t know whether god exists. If you had been reared in India, it’s highly probable you would say you don’t know whether gods exist. Your position is highly influenced by Christianity because that is the god you cited.

Other than the deist’s god lack of creation stories and miracles, what makes it hard to disprove more than the christian?
Isn’t it up to the deist to prove said god?

this is not true, I am aware of all gods and I am sure that all of them do not exist but deistic god.

I know a method to test and invalidate all gods, I don't know any to use to invalidate a deistic god. If you know any, i Will revert me back to atheism or deism if need be

Bacteriologist:
Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, as it is a knowledge claim.

And in my view, when it comes to belief there are two choices. You either believe or you don't. Or at least you lean towards one side than the other. There's no in between.

That's why like the picture says, you might have a Gnostic atheist or an Agnostic atheist. Both are atheists, they don't believe in god but the confidence levels differ greatly.

Im afraid what you call pure Agnosticism (without the theist/atheist Qualifier) considering the god belief does not exist. As you either believe in God or you don't.

sincerely, that picture really cannot tell me what I feel about a creator.
I personally don't know if a creator/God exist or not.
I have not reached any conclusions from not knowing, that's why I am a pure Agnostic.


An atheistic Agnostic Will say that: I don't know if a God exists and I don't believe it until I see evidence. This is not what I share.

For me, I think it's impossible to find evidence for or against such. I don't know, I don't believe it or not

KnownUnknown:
Why not gods?

Because many gods can be disproven using a Controlled experiment to test their ttributes or claims in their religious books.
Fore example, the genesis creation story has been disproven by science and its a pointer to the fact that those stories were made up. We can test the veracity of miracle claims and we will get 100% statistical level of significance. So, we can conclude that the christian God was made up.

However, a deistic god is hard to disprove, because there is no attribute whatsoever to test. Hence I will conclude that I don't know if a creator exist or not based on that reason

LordReed:
This might not be true because it is possible to show at the quantum level that A can cause B and B cause A. If like some scientists postulate the big bang was a result of perturbations at the quantum level then it stands to reason that a true first cause might not exist.

That fact that A can cause B and Be can cause A does not answer the question of first cause for me. Unless you want to buttress the point to make me understand you better

Bacteriologist:
I don't find them mutually exclusive. Atheism is a belief claim.

A - theism = Absence of belief in god.

(A)Gnosticism relates more with knowledge and confidence levels.

And since knowledge is a subset of belief both can co-exist.

So we can have an Agnostic atheist or a Gnostic theist.

believe it or not, these are constructs, we have pure Agnostics.

I am one of them. I do not know if God exits and it ends there. I don't believe it or not

justcool:
The vastness of existence haunts mankind; we know so little about the universe whose vastness overwhelms our imagination.
Some people doubt that the human mind is capable of knowing all that exists; therefore, the knowledge of whether the universe has a creator or not is out of the question. Hence, agnosticism!
The Agnostic proposes that the human mind is incapable of knowing whether God exists or not.
Is the agnostic right? Do you think that we can know whether the universe has a creator or not?
Join us as we examine the interesting viewpoint of agnosticism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxIqkwRE5m8

I use to be a Christian l, then atheist, at least I found out Tha Agnosticism seem to be the best philosophicsl stand point.

christistruth01:
But Tinubu the Visionary of the Lekki Free Zone is from Iragbiji in Modakeke's Osun State

And the Awori founders of Lagos also migrated from Osun State ,founded and Occupied Strategic Lagos centuries before your forefathers and even the Europeans even knew it existed

Even the Water from the Ocean at Moba in Lagos was used to Wash Oduduwa's face
fetched from Lagos to Ile Ife by Owa Obokun the first king of Ilesha

ok, great to know.

backtovillage:
Why didn't you have it in your hometown with the help of FG?
Don't be annoyed with my question oh

I am not annoyed, maybe there's no need for it and there's a need for federal government to approve it in Lagos as a commercial hub.

Don't be angry with my answer

Ritchiee:
Says a holed up Abakeleke indigene.

I will soon start doing importations from Lekki seaport, dey Ibadan dey hate

Ritchiee:
Na we dey do petty trading for this Lagos, na we know no know what's up.

Na you Sabi, dey Ibadan dey argue about Lekki FTZ

Ritchiee:
Says a chewing stick hawker and a senior member of Obi imps.

Na we dey do business for this Lagos, na we know what's up. No be urhicns wey dey for Modakeke for Osun state or Ogbomoso in Oyo.

Free trade zones are controlled and regulated by federal laws through Nigeria Export Processing zone act via the a federal government agency called Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority (NEPZA).

Yes, a state can initiate the idea to establish FTZs, but it's still at the perogative of the federal government if they will approve or not because it will not be the state government that will be controlling and regulating activities there.

Ritchiee:
Olodo.There are quite a lot of things a state cannot do except with partnership with the FG.
A state cannot even take a foreign loan except with the volition of the FG so also is a free trade zone.
What Tinubu did was to think and do with the help of the FG.Yes,with a lot of push and push..
If it were not for the bureaucracy of the FG,Lagos would have been another Dubai with the midas touch of Tinubu and his team.
Tinubu is a genius.

Shut up joor, you know nothing about free trade zones. Scoilist.


My company's warehouse is at Lekki free trade zone and I cannot be arguing with an illiterate urchin who barely can afford to feed on nairaland about issues concerning businesses.

Free-trade zones are controlled by federal government, I don't just know how to explain simple terms to irredeemable morons

drlateef:
We have the evidence that nobody can controvert. Tinubu created the Lekki Free Trade Zone. He did that after reclaiming the land from sea encroachment, using his ingenuity. On that free trade zone is the Dangote Refinery, the deep sea port, the Eko Atlantic mega city, the lekki airport and so many other manufacturing and retail businesses. On it are many residential houses like Banana Island and so many other businesses. Millions of people are being employed already. Now, when we point out the achievements of Tinubu, many nitwit opposers would quickly give you a weak argument that it was because Lagos was a capital. Can any of them tell me how Lagos being former capital made Tinubu to have a vision of creating the Lekki Free Trade Zone? Can any of them tell me how Lagos being former capital made Dangote to site the biggest refinery in the Free Zone? Remember that other states had rejected the proposal of Dangote to site the refinery in their states. Can any of these losers and miserable opposers tell me how Tinubu took bribe before bringing these businesses to the Lekki Free Zone?

I am sure there is no excuse anymore from opponents of Tinubu. All that is left is hatred for Nigeria’s development in their hearts. Otherwise they would not see a visionary leader like Tinubu doing wonders in Lagos, and decide that an Obi who has no such vision or Atiku is a confirmed looter will be theur choice based on religious and tribal considerations.

Nigerians vote for Tinubu so that we can have more Lekki Free Trade zones in Nigeria. Do not vote for poor leaders who have no vision for a greater Nigeria. If you love Nigeria vote Tinubu. If you think Nigeria will forever be a zoo you can vote Ipob leader, a useless vote. If you think Nigeria can still survive another looting spree for 8 years, if you think Nigeria needs to sell all its wealth to friends of Atiku, vote for him.

what a free trade zone means is any location where goods can be shipped, handled, manufactured, reconfigured and re-exported without the involvement of customs agencies.

So tell me how Lagos state can singlehandedly create Lekii free trade zone to stop a federal institution like Nigerian customs and FIRS without the involvement of the federal government.

Tinubu supporters are largely illiterate who are fond of spewing trash without proper information.

No state can create any free trade zone. You know what that means? You are telling federal government not to tax goods and services from that region, who is a state to tell federal government that?

Lekki cannot have a free trade zone without federal government. Are you guys just dumb or something?

Do you know what's a free trade zone is and how it works? A state government cannot singlehandedly create free trade zone