Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,177,002 members, 7,899,586 topics. Date: Wednesday, 24 July 2024 at 03:30 PM

. - Religion (2) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / . (8118 Views)

Towards Uniting Theist And Atheist / Theist Jewish Scientist Daniel Shechtman Wins 2011 Nobel Prize In Chemistry / Indaba, My Children - God's "origin" And The Sacred Tree Of Life. (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: . by thehomer: 10:33am On Aug 26, 2011
sexkillz:

Why dont you atleast try to answer the questions first! Or just say YOU DONT KNOW!

My point is that if the questions are irrelevant, then I don't have to bother answering them. By answering those questions, you let me know if they are relevant.

sexkillz:

I also asked if a CREATOR can be CREATED? Can you answer that >>>>>>>>SIR?


That would depend on what you mean by creation.
Re: . by lagerwhenindoubt(m): 10:36am On Aug 26, 2011
sexkillz:

Why dont you atleast try to answer the questions first! Or just say YOU DONT KNOW!

I also asked if a CREATOR can be CREATED? Can you answer that >>>>>>>>SIR?

My answer (depends on your definition - see my earlier post)

lagerwhenindoubt:

Creation and Existence are on 2 different dimensions but can be perceived from the same level of conciousness. The Bible reveals a palatable answer to the origins of God right from Genesis. (I will get to this in a moment)

The Concept of a Universal Creator is valid from the perspective of Cause and Effect i.e God must have "caused" creation and by applying (natural) human reasoning which I hope you can agree has evolved over the centuries, a bias for a Creator who is pre-existent thus existing before creation is formed. IMHO this line of reasoning (often referred to as Revelation by Theists) is misconceived largely because human reasoning at the ages was based on available information (awareness) of the surrounding environment which man knew little of.

To Exist essentially implies that the subject has no discernible nor measurable point of origin and conceivably no finite close to its existence - hence It is Eternal (not to be mistook for Immortal). The dilemma in this is that every quality in the "Creators" designs (asides from the hint of structural physiological  semblance) has no genealogical link to the "Creator" (unless you wish to delve into Spirit and Souls which can taint the argument unfairly)

If we focus on the question of origins of which centuries of arguments has till date not unravelled, we lose sight of the most important question. What is the Creator's Purpose? The "Creator" (If we choose to follow a Theistic approach) mandates his creations with a purpose (this is Biblically and Scripturally and Atheistically palatable)

If you know the Purpose, you will have a grip on the Origin. I would rather ask the question, What is the Creator's Purpose? is it to Create? I would like a Theistic view on this perhaps the answer to the Origin will reveal itself.
Re: . by Nobody: 10:45am On Aug 26, 2011
The homer & Largerwhenindoubt!

Can a Creator be Created?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Where in my question did i mention God? Or call God [/b]a Creator?

Did i ask you can God be Created? Abeg look well o!

[b]The homer! So am i free to call you questions irrelevant too? It's like that's an ATHEISTS favorite word clearly used for EVASION! What's irrelevant to the question i asked?

largerwhenindoubt, did you see these questions at all?

Have you seen TIME, PERFECT CIRCLE, and 5?

Why do you believe in their EXISTENCE if you have'nt seen them PHYSICALLY?
Re: . by thehomer: 10:52am On Aug 26, 2011
sexkillz:

The homer & Largerwhenindoubt!

Can a Creator be Created?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Where in my question did i mention God? Or call God [/b]a Creator?

Did i ask you can God be Created? Abeg look well o!

Hold on for a minute, are you saying God isn't a creator?

sexkillz:

[b]The homer! So am i free to call you questions irrelevant too? It's like that's an ATHEISTS favorite word clearly used for EVASION! What's irrelevant to the question i asked?

largerwhenindoubt, did you see these questions at all?

Have you seen TIME, PERFECT CIRCLE, and 5?

Why do you believe in their EXISTENCE if you have'nt seen them PHYSICALLY?

Which question do you think is irrelevant? Why don't you actually point it out?
Asking the questions about fives and circles when we're talking about God implies that they're somehow connected. I don't see the connection if you think there's a connection please point it out otherwise, they're irrelevant.
Re: . by Nobody: 10:54am On Aug 26, 2011
Admit it, you do not know why you are here and where you are headed, just like many you have rationalized a lot and founded your beliefs on misinterpretation

I actually do! I also know why we are here and where we are headed! But until i'm able to discern clearly that you guys are open to reason, i wont spill! Until you stop picking irrelevant holes from arguments, this TOM & JERRY responses from me WONT STOP! Have you seen any thing CREATED without a reason? What makes you think Whoever it is that CREATED man DID not have a reason for doing so?
Re: . by Nobody: 11:02am On Aug 26, 2011
thehomer!

Isn't it OBVIOUS? Have i mentioned ANYWHERE on this thread that "GOD is the CREATOR"? Dont we have Creators Everywhere on earth?

Ok Sorry! CAN AN INVENTOR BE INVENTED? Better now?

Now lemme REMIND you why those questions are relevant! ATHEISTS ONLY believe in [b]HARD FACTUAL EVIDENCE! [/b]Ring a BELL?

Still Irrelevant?
Re: . by thehomer: 11:09am On Aug 26, 2011
sexkillz:

thehomer!

Isn't it OBVIOUS? Have i mentioned ANYWHERE on this thread that "GOD is the CREATOR"? Dont we have Creators Everywhere on earth?

Ok Sorry! CAN AN INVENTOR BE INVENTED? Better now?

Not really because by inventor, you're automatically limited on earth to humans alone. Just to clarify, are you saying God isn't the creator or a creator?

sexkillz:

Now lemme REMIND you why those questions are relevant! ATHEISTS ONLY believe in [b]HARD FACTUAL EVIDENCE! [/b]Ring a BELL?

Still Irrelevant?

Sorry, still don't see the relevance or are you saying there is no evidence for five, circle or time?

Keep in mind that the topic is on God's origin. You also accused me of raising irrelevant questions. Can you point out some of the questions that you think are irrelevant?
Re: . by Nobody: 11:12am On Aug 26, 2011
Can another Intelligent ATHEIST answer these?

What is LOGIC?

Whose LOGIC is RIGHT?

And how do you determine who's LOGIC is right?

How did you PROVE the EXISTENCE of LOGIC
Re: . by Nobody: 11:18am On Aug 26, 2011
thehomer

Ok! On Earth, can an INVENTOR be CALLED a CREATOR? Mind you I'm YET to attribute CREATION to GOD on this Thread!

I'm not saying there's no EVIDENCE for TIME, CIRCLE or 5! But Have you ACTUALLY SEEN THEM PHYSICALLY before you believed in their EXISTENCE?

If then you have not encountered them PHYSICALLY, on WHAT basis then SHOULD you Believe in them?

Still irrelevant?
Re: . by Nobody: 11:21am On Aug 26, 2011
thehomer:

Not really because by inventor, [size=15pt]you're automatically limited on earth to humans alone.[/size]

Hmm! Are you IMPLYING that there could be A CREATOR SOMEWHERE ELSE APART FROM EARTH?
Re: . by thehomer: 11:27am On Aug 26, 2011
sexkillz:

thehomer
Ok! On Earth, can an INVENTOR be CALLED a CREATOR? Mind you I'm YET to attribute CREATION to GOD on this Thread!

On Earth, they may be considered synonymous, but one must be careful when using them interchangeably in a discussion such as this because that could easily lead to the fallacy of equivocation.

sexkillz:

I'm not saying there's no EVIDENCE for TIME, CIRCLE or 5! But Have you ACTUALLY SEEN THEM PHYSICALLY before you believed in their EXISTENCE?

If then you have not encountered them PHYSICALLY, on WHAT basis then SHOULD you Believe in them?

Still irrelevant?

That is an interesting question because all I've been asking is whether God is like them. If God is like time, circle or 5, then your question is relevant. If God isn't like them, then it is irrelevant. So, can you simply let me know if God is like them? I don't want to be sidetracked by a question that may be irrelevant.
Re: . by thehomer: 11:30am On Aug 26, 2011
sexkillz:

Hmm! Are you IMPLYING that there could be A CREATOR SOMEWHERE ELSE APART FROM EARTH?

And here, you commit the equivocation I've been trying to avoid. A creator is not necessarily the same as an inventor. Conflating them in this manner is a fallacy of ambiguity.
Re: . by thehomer: 11:31am On Aug 26, 2011
sexkillz:

Can another Intelligent ATHEIST answer these?

What is LOGIC?

Whose LOGIC is RIGHT?

And how do you determine who's LOGIC is right?

How did you PROVE the EXISTENCE of LOGIC


Again, how is this relevant to God?
Re: . by lagerwhenindoubt(m): 11:33am On Aug 26, 2011
@sexKillz (in some bizarre circumstances sexkillz)

I had hoped to summarize the answers to your questions by providing insight after the fact to allow us progress to the next level (my question) but you have stubbornly refused to see this so i will take your questions. and forgive me for jumping the gun but i presume that "Creator"="God" which i think is your End-Game so why waste braincells avoiding the inevitable  wink

Do you promise that you will give me an answer whether you agree with my answer or not? and you solemnly swear that your answer would not be tainted with insults but rather laid bare with Truth (which ever flavor you choose) and maturity, Do you? I expect you would so i will lay bare my answer to your question.

Time [/b]may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality, (not proven to be non-existent) The Planck scale is a concept of time where even attoseconds drag by like eons. It marks the edge of known physics, a region where distances and intervals are so short that the very concepts of time and space start to break down. [b]But is is undeniable that time is obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience. This situation is known as "The Problem of Time" In essence the past, present, and future are not absolutes thus the best way to think of quantum reality is to give up the notion of time (a timeless universe) as odd as this situation is one asks the obvious question why does time always points to the future even when no physics laws restricts it from moving backward   if it marches forward then it must have an origin (an initial condition and conceivably a final condition)

A perfect circle cannot be constructed simply because at an atomic level, a circle really is a collection of points (polygons) which are not spheres, our mind visualizes the perfect circle just as our eyes visualize 3-d information when we actually see in 2-d (surprising how the mind works is it not)

permit me to point you to my previous post on your number 5 question because it is tasking summarizing mathematical logic. I will leave it as I DO NOT KNOW

Since you have hinted we are not talking Religion but Theism, I will leave out Biblical Scripture from this discussion. (makes it less tedious)

I repost again and be kind to note I make no claims to knowledge of the "unknown" but simply ask questions to fill a gap,if you know please enlighten me

Can A Creator be Created? - Even the concept of time exposes a quality of Origin which we can discern from Present condition (which would be future a few atto seconds from now and PAST thereafter) It means it has a beginning. other than that, I do not have the knowledge to answer your question without solid proof. I can only theorize (unless you a a fan of theories)

lagerwhenindoubt:

Creation and Existence are on 2 different dimensions but can be perceived from the same level of conciousness. The Bible reveals a palatable answer to the origins of God right from Genesis. (I will get to this in a moment)

The Concept of a Universal Creator is valid from the perspective of Cause and Effect i.e God must have "caused" creation and by applying (natural) human reasoning which I hope you can agree has evolved over the centuries, a bias for a Creator who is pre-existent thus existing before creation is formed. IMHO this line of reasoning (often referred to as Revelation by Theists) is misconceived largely because human reasoning at the ages was based on available information (awareness) of the surrounding environment which man knew little of.

To Exist essentially implies that the subject has no discernible nor measurable point of origin and conceivably no finite close to its existence - hence It is Eternal (not to be mistook for Immortal). The dilemma in this is that every quality in the "Creators" designs (asides from the hint of structural physiological  semblance) has no genealogical link to the "Creator" (unless you wish to delve into Spirit and Souls which can taint the argument unfairly)

If we focus on the question of origins of which centuries of arguments has till date not unravelled, we lose sight of the most important question. What is the Creator's Purpose? The "Creator" (If we choose to follow a Theistic approach) mandates his creations with a purpose (this is Biblically and Scripturally and Atheistically palatable)

If you know the Purpose, you will have a grip on the Origin. I would rather ask the question, What is the Creator's Purpose? is it to Create? I would like a Theistic view on this perhaps the answer to the Origin will reveal itself.
Re: . by lagerwhenindoubt(m): 11:38am On Aug 26, 2011
sexkillz:

I actually do! I also know why we are here and where we are headed! But until i'm able to discern clearly that you guys are open to reason, i wont spill! Until you stop picking irrelevant holes from arguments, this TOM & JERRY responses from me WONT STOP! Have you seen any thing CREATED without a reason? What makes you think Whoever it is that CREATED man DID not have a reason for doing so?

I did not say man does not have a purpose or designs do not have one, obviously this reality is driven by purpose, but what is man's purpose on earth and afterwards. I can only theorize and not say for certain. for me it is like sticking my thumb in the air and saying "Hey I think we are heading that way!" but since you claim to know for Certain.I am open to reason. even if it is a private email i do not mind, this among numerous mysteries of life I would like answered. care to be generous with your answers smiley
Re: . by Nobody: 11:38am On Aug 26, 2011
thehomer:

On Earth, they may be considered synonymous, but one must be careful when using them interchangeably in a discussion such as this because that could easily lead to the fallacy of equivocation.
Are you saying that if two things are SYNONYMOUS that they CANT be Used interchangeably? Or am i missing something?

thehomer:
That is an interesting question because all I've been asking is whether God is like them. If God is like time, circle or 5, then your question is relevant. If God isn't like them, then it is irrelevant. So, can you simply let me know if God is like them? I don't want to be sidetracked by a question that may be irrelevant.

I DONT KNOW either! What do you THINK?

God >>>>> EXISTS>>>> Has not been seen PHYSICALLY - Believed in BY MANY!

5, CIRCLE, TIME>>>>> EXISTS >>>Has not been seen PHYSICALLY - Believed in by MANY!
Re: . by thehomer: 11:46am On Aug 26, 2011
sexkillz:

Are you saying that if two things are SYNONYMOUS that they CANT be Used interchangeably? Or am i missing something?

Yes you are. In a discussion such as this, alternating between them arbitrarily destroys the argument because it would easily lead to a fallacy of ambiguity.

sexkillz:

I DONT KNOW either! What do you THINK?

Since you've asked me of what I think about your God? Well I'll tell you. Your God may be ranked with Zeus, Brahma, Shiva, Odin, FSM among others.

sexkillz:

God >>>>> EXISTS>>>> Has not been seen PHYSICALLY - Believed in BY MANY!

So what? Many people believe in Santa Claus, ET visitations, genies etc.

sexkillz:

5, CIRCLE, TIME>>>>> EXISTS >>>Has not been seen PHYSICALLY - Believed in by MANY!

This is a false analogy because the class of Gods is different from the class of numbers, physical dimensions and shapes.
Re: . by Nobody: 11:50am On Aug 26, 2011
largerwhenindoubt

Now we are getting some where! Forgive me IF I DONT EVER ANSWER QUESTIONS DIRECTLY! I'm VERY GOOD in ANSWERING QUESTIONS WITH QUESTIONS! And Most times the ANSWER TO QUESTIONS I ASK ARE JUST OBVIOUS! THERE FORE It answers the question of the ASKER! smiley

If TIME, CIRCLE & 5 which are we ENCOUNTER their Impact in our Daily Lives Cannot be proven to Exist! Does that ACTUALLY mean we SHOULD DISCARD their EXISTENCE simply Because WE DONT KNOW their ORIGIN? And because we are YET to PHYSICALLY ENCOUNTER THEM?



Re: . by lagerwhenindoubt(m): 11:51am On Aug 26, 2011
sexkillz:

Are you saying that if two things are SYNONYMOUS that they CANT be Used interchangeably? Or am i missing something?

I DONT KNOW either! What do you THINK?

God >>>>> EXISTS>>>> Has not been seen PHYSICALLY - Believed in BY MANY!

5, CIRCLE, TIME>>>>> EXISTS >>>Has not been seen PHYSICALLY - Believed in by MANY!


There is a common error in thought going by your position above. let me explain
TIME: not seen physically but proven to have an undeniably measurable and repeatable influence in physical reality
PERFECT CIRCLE: not seen physically but proven to be useful in material (physical) constructs from footballs to ball bearings etc
GOD: not seen physically but claimed to have an undeniably unmeasurable, non-proveable, non-repeatable influence on physical reality. FAITH is the only glue to this claim.

There is a big difference right there
Re: . by Nobody: 11:58am On Aug 26, 2011
thehomer:

Yes you are. In a discussion such as this, alternating between them arbitrarily destroys the argument because it would easily lead to a fallacy of ambiguity.

Me? You were the one that said they were SYNONYMOUS! I only asked if SYNONYMS can be used interchangeably or not!

thehomer:
Since you've asked me of what I think about your God? Well I'll tell you. Your God may be ranked with Zeus, Brahma, Shiva, Odin, FSM among others.
NO NO NO! i did not ask you what you thought about MY GOD( Did i mention if i have a GOD on this thread?) i asked you because you asked me if God was like them! I gave you the similarities in the context bothering on EXISTENCE!!!

thehomer:
This is a false analogy because the class of Gods is different from the class of numbers, physical dimensions and shapes.
Again I AM YET to mention GODS or CLASS of GODS! I'm HAMMERING ON EXISTENCE!
Re: . by Nobody: 12:04pm On Aug 26, 2011
lagerwhenindoubt:

There is a common error in thought going by your position above. let me explain
TIME: not seen physically but proven to have an undeniably measurable and repeatable influence in physical reality
PERFECT CIRCLE: not seen physically but proven to be useful in material (physical) constructs from footballs to ball bearings etc
GOD: not seen physically but claimed to have an undeniably unmeasurable, non-proveable, non-repeatable influence on physical reality. FAITH is the only glue to this claim.

There is a big difference right there
Good you did not bring in Disputes from other SOURCES!

Now what is FAITH!?? And is it Wrong to have FAITH? In ANYTHING? (Not GOD mind you)

This was why i ASKED for a definition of LOGIC! wink
Re: . by thehomer: 12:07pm On Aug 26, 2011
sexkillz:

Me? You were the one that said they were SYNONYMOUS! I only asked if SYNONYMS can be used interchangeably or not!

They are synonymous and may be used interchangeably in regular conversation. When it comes to a conversation requiring more precision, trying to do that opens up opportunities for fallacies.

sexkillz:

NO NO NO! i did not ask you what you thought about MY GOD( Did i mention if i have a GOD on this thread?) i asked you because you asked me if God was like them! I gave you the similarities in the context bothering on EXISTENCE!!!

Oh? You asked me what I thought about God and I told you. What makes you think your God doesn't belong there?

sexkillz:

Again I AM YET to mention GODS or CLASS of GODS! I'm HAMMERING ON EXISTENCE![/font][/size][/color]

Existence of what in relation to what? Don't try to be so evasive. It simply will not work. Simply accept and present your God so we can proceed.
Re: . by Nobody: 12:26pm On Aug 26, 2011
thehomer:

They are synonymous and may be used interchangeably in regular conversation. When it comes to a conversation requiring more precision, trying to do that opens up opportunities for fallacies.
Do you have any PROOF for that statement?

thehomer:
Oh? You asked me what I thought about God and I told you. What makes you think your God doesn't belong there?
My GOD? What GOD? Did i say i HAVE a GOD?

thehomer:
Existence of what in relation to what? Don't try to be so evasive. It simply will not work. Simply accept and present your God so we can proceed.

Do you have a GOD? No? What makes you so SURE i have ONE?
Re: . by thehomer: 12:31pm On Aug 26, 2011
sexkillz:

Do you have any PROOF for that statement?

Are you asking if people actually commit such a fallacy?

sexkillz:

My GOD? What GOD? Did i say i HAVE a GOD?
Do you have a GOD? No? What makes you so SURE i have ONE?

Since this seems to be a recurring theme with you, then simply answer this do you believe in a personal God? Please answer it and put the issue to rest.
Re: . by Nobody: 12:36pm On Aug 26, 2011
I BELIEVE IN A CREATOR!!! Does that Answer your Question?
Re: . by thehomer: 12:43pm On Aug 26, 2011
sexkillz:

I BELIEVE IN A CREATOR!!! Does that Answer your Question?

Its a step in the right direction. Now, is this creator of yours personal or impersonal? i.e can you influence this creator and does he care about you?
Re: . by philip0906(m): 12:48pm On Aug 26, 2011
lagerwhenindoubt:

There is a common error in thought going by your position above. let me explain
TIME: not seen physically but proven to have an undeniably measurable and repeatable influence in physical reality
PERFECT CIRCLE: not seen physically but proven to be useful in material (physical) constructs from footballs to ball bearings etc
GOD: [size=28pt]not seen physically[/size] but claimed to have an undeniably unmeasurable, non-proveable, non-repeatable influence on physical reality. FAITH is the only glue to this claim.

There is a big difference right there
how did u come to that conclusion,dat no one has seen God or that God is not seen physically?i want proofs and facts. . .
Re: . by Nobody: 12:54pm On Aug 26, 2011
@th
thehomer:

Its a step in the right direction. Now, is this creator of yours personal or impersonal? i.e can you influence this creator and does he care about you?
NOT SO FAST Homie! So far I have answered your Questions! Do you mind Answering mine? They are practically BEGGING to be answered! We created a starting GROUND! All you need to do is Give me MY ANSWERS especially the one that has to to WITH LOGIC! I need to quote you sometimes, during the course of our discussion! wink

Pls AVOID the USE of the WORD IRRELEVANT! smiley
Re: . by thehomer: 1:00pm On Aug 26, 2011
sexkillz:

@thNOT SO FAST Homie! So far I have answered your Questions! Do you mind Answering mine? They are practically BEGGING to be answered! We created a starting GROUND! All you need to do is Give me MY ANSWERS especially the one that has to to WITH LOGIC! I need to quote you sometimes, during the course of our discussion! wink

Pls AVOID the USE of the WORD IRRELEVANT! smiley

You've only answered one of my questions and you think I'm going too fast?
The problem with some of your questions is that I don't see how they are relevant. If they're not relevant, then my answering them will be a waste of time. The thing is that if I point out that a question is not relevant but you think it is, then you should point out why it is relevant.

On the question of logic, what is its relevance? What does logic have to do with your creator?
Re: . by philip0906(m): 1:06pm On Aug 26, 2011
Where is lagerwhenindoubt? he should please come and prove his claim,dat God is not seen Physically or that no one has seen God. . .
Re: . by thehomer: 1:14pm On Aug 26, 2011
philip0906:

Where is lagerwhenindoubt? he should please come and prove his claim,dat God is not seen Physically or that no one has seen God. . .

Has your God been seen physically?

Edit: seen
Re: . by philip0906(m): 1:20pm On Aug 26, 2011
thehomer:

Has your God been seed physically?
Ok u seem to be coming to his rescue,but lets take it step by step. . .your friend made a claim dat God is not seen physically and that no one has seen him physically,please prove it with verifiable and substantiated facts that God is not seen physically and that God has not been seen physically?
Remember the Atheist anthem?*We deal with Facts and proofs*. . .so waiting

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (Reply)

How Will Hellfire Burn The Damned, Christians? / Mantras / I'm Fed UP!! I Want To Start A Church! Who Is With Me?

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 94
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.