The title is misleading though

I am not his biggest fan but he is making sense.

bukatyne:
1 100% agree with Danielle on this.

Putting women in positions based on gender or filling a quota only says the woman can't get there on a free and fair competition.

What if women actually can't get into some positions on a free and fair competition? Should they then be completely ignored?

Utter rubbish.
Women need to decide what they really want.

Ik simply lacks depth, unless he is trying to be smart.
Providing 100% is like giving the man a "license to kill" .

Love is definitely conditional but the number of conditions we give is a reflection of the quality of love we feel for the individual.

Love just doesn't make sense sometimes.

bukatyne:


If they were happy, we will not have a lot of damaged adults today

Considering the fact how people say today's ladies are lazier, maybe older women had other aspirations.

Besides, I don't think aspiring to be a Mrs. only is the problem (afterall, if the marriage was sweet, it would have given the kids a model to look forward to)..... it is staying in terrible marriages at all costs and bringing forth damaged offsprings that is my issue.

Besides I thought their investigations was to see if there were thieves, strange/premature deaths, ritualists, madness, epilepsy etc. and not really character flaws because I doubt abuse in all forms was seen as a character flaw.

Agree with the bolded.
However leaving or staying in an terrible marriage can both lead to raising highly dysfunctional adults. I have seen live examples of both.
The peculiarities of the situation should determine the better option.

Antiparticle:
Ah I no get time to dey watch video o. If you can't explain it on this thread then I may not watch it... sorry... maybe when I have time later tonight sha. But I can't guarantee it. Thanks anyways.

Ahh. I only come to this site on my phone, so can't do any long typing.
When you have time, watch.

Antiparticle:
whats up?

Please watch the video. It explains my points on the other thread.

"gambling is just a tax on the foolish"
For most people the above saying is true.

To stand a chance, you need deep knowledge of the domain you are betting in, and also a firm grasp of statistics/probability

Antiparticle

modath:

Saraki is staying, confirmed.

He predicted Jona was going to be returned & El Eufai was not going to be elected, we all bin know how far...

Abeg someone should inform that old man that his employer don win oooo

The man's reaction shows that he's definitely not a Nigerian

Well, it's really simple.

If you support him and you don't mind the same for your daughter, fine.

If you support him but don't want the same for your daughter, then you are a slowpoke.

Antiparticle:
On this is where you lost me. There is no evidence whatsoever that a creator exists so I can't fullt engage in the thought experiment of a creator.

But even if I were to try to participate in such thought experiment, how do you know that said creator has a purpose for our creation? Not everything is done for a purpose so it is a logical leap to assume that there was a purpose. What if this creator was so daft that he/she/it created the universe by accident?

I only replied your question which was based on the assumption of a creator.

As you can see, there are a lot of unknowns if you base your belief on empirical evidence, and that's why I don't understand why atheists believe that the world was definitely not created.

I am a christian and my belief came as a result of personal experiences which I cannot prove to you empirically. That's why I have kept it purely logical on this thread.

Antiparticle:
Please clarify or rephrase, I don't understand.

First, everything around where you are right now has a purpose for it's creation.

If we have a creator, it implies that we were all created for a purpose no matter how small or seemingly insignificant it is.

That you feel the creator is in hiding, doesn't mean that other people do not have access to him.

Antiparticle:
Ok we both agree on that.
Now that we got that out of the way, what is your opinion on the following questions that I asked previously:
But even if something or someone created the universe, what do you say are the implications? Does this mean that it is important that we revere that something or someone? That something or someone obviously doesn't give a shi*t about humans because he/she/it has gone into hiding since he/she/it created the universe.

Well, it depends on the purpose of creation.
If you don't the purpose of something, it's existence wont make sense to you.

Antiparticle:
I fully agree with you about margin of errors and the risk of extrapolating indefinitely.
You were the one that extrapolated indefinitely that "science can never explain how everything got started". In response, I wrote that "science is a body of knowledge that keeps expanding" in order to moderate your absolutist extrapolation. I don't know if science will eventually explain how everything got started, but I do know that it is uninformed to write that "science can never explain how everything got started" as you did.

So abeg where did I say that science will explain everything? Please quote it precisely. You have now begun to dance around in circles and I will have to ignore you if you don't quote what you claim I said, or if you don't stand corrected for misquoting me.

Also, you haven't answered any of the questions posed in I response to your previous commentary about your hypothetical something or someone creators that designed the universe.

Ok let me retrace my steps.
I am not sure that science will ever explain everything.
Neither are you.

Shall we both agree then?

Antiparticle:

This is extremely improbable. Up until now, we have never found anything in the universe that is not bound by the same laws of physics that we observe here on earth, so your italicized statement above is pure blind guesswork. Even quantum mechanical systems with all their astounding quirks can be predictably described statistically. I wonder why you would conjecture out of nowhere that something that is not bound by the laws of the universe created the universe. This is an extraordinarily unlikely explanation. But even if something or someone created the universe, what do you say are the implications? Does this mean that it is important that we revere that something or someone? That something or someone obviously doesn't give a shi*t about humans because he/she/it has gone into hiding since he/she/it created the universe.


Please quote where I said I have faith that science will one day explain everything. You are misusing the word faith in order to suit your position. A scientist does not need faith to extrapolate into the future. Scientists/statisticians develop prediction models that extrapolate based on current and past data; these models are used to assign a likelihood value to a future event. This is not based on faith, but is based on past/current evidence and physical laws.

I am happy you mentioned a likelyhood value.
It means that there is a margin for error.

As a scientist, you cannot extrapolate indefinitely when you are dealing with a lot of unknowns. Your model is bound to break down at some point.

Yes, it takes some faith to suggest that because science has explained somethings, science will explain everything.


To explain my point about something not bound by the laws of its own creation.
Imagine that there is an advanced version of the Angry Birds game in which the birds have been programmed to make decisions by themselves.

The game is their universe and some of them may think that they were not created if they cannot see any evidence of the team who created them.
And it'd be wrong for the birds to expect whoever created them to behave like them.

Antiparticle:
OK, fair enough. You didn't mention Yahweh. But in one of your posts you wrote that something or someone designed the universe. If something or someone indeed designed the universe, wouldn't that something or someone also have had to have been designed by another something or someone (thus resulting in a negative infinity of something and someone creators)? While at first glance your theory of design may appear plausible, upon closer inspection it appears to be a highly unlikely explanation of the whats and hows of the universe's existence.

Also, your statement that "science can never explain how everything started" is mistaken. Ten thousand years ago, I'm sure humans made statements like "man can never create a flying vehicle that would land on the moon"; we both know how that turned out. Science is a body of knowledge that keeps expanding.

I said something not bound by the laws of the universe.
This means that it may be self existing because it doesn't have to obey the laws of the universe.

If you have faith that one day science will explain everything, how are you different from someone who has faith that God created the universe?

You both do not have empirical evidence for your belief

plaetton:

Lol.
Since we are dealing with hypothesis here, let me also deduce that it was most likely something or someone who obeys the laws of the universe that could have designed and created that other something or someone that supposedly created the universe.

How is that for a deduction?

You have clearly run out of points.
I am very disappointed in you. Actually thought you were going to WOW me with some mind blowing logic.

Antiparticle:
OK, even if something else is responsible for creating the universe, why jump to the conclusion that it was an invisible being? And even if it truly were an invisible being, why make the leap that this being was Yahweh? The latter is an extremely huuuuge leap! Why not Obatala or Zeus or Amadiora? Abeg let me know if I am misunderstanding you. I have an open mind.

Where did you see invisible being or yahweh in my post.
I said something not bound by the laws of the universe created the universe.

Why did I say that?
Because science can never explain how everything started.

plaetton:


Big big lol.
You guys never ever cease to shock me.

I cannot believe, that after you called my post silly, that you would double down on the silliness by making such a stupendously SILLY statement that someone or something, who doesn't obey the laws of the universe, designed the universe.

I am stupified.

Ehmm, it is called deduction.

Since you have refused to give me a meaningful explaination of how the universe started, and I cannot find one myself, it only makes sense to accept that something outside of the laws of the universe is responsible. Whatever name you choose to call that thing is up to you.

The agnostics atleast accept this but I just dont understand you atheists.

plaetton:


Self existent energy, lying in potential, burst forth into space, expanded, cooled, condensed into matter, etc etc.
The rest is in your science text books.

We don't yet know what triggered the expansion. We would rather meticulously investigate rather than invoke magic to account for it.

I don't think you even believe what you wrote up there.
Self existent energy? Really?

So it suddenly decided to burst forth?

Look, I am not here to argue against evolution or the big bang(thats for another day), but to suggest that time started itself is just silly.

Something or someone who doesnt obey the laws of the universe, designed the universe.

onetrack:


I say let him try. He will either be convinced or you will leave him crying into his indomie.

LOL
He seems to have disappeared.
Perhaps you can help answer my last question.

I have just finished making my indomie.

plaetton:


We have a theory, a fairly good theory, a working theory.
It is called the Big Bang Theory.

Have heard, read about it or studied it?

Now, let me warm you. Before you begin to attempt to refute the BBT, I urge you to study it very well and make sure you understand it.
Because, if you come here with ignorant knowledge of the big bang theory, then You will be surely dflogged, like many many before you.

for sake of time, kindly give me an overview of the BBT.

what caused the big bang

Atheism is such a silly idea

plaetton:

Now, again consider that universe has been chugging along for 14 billion yrs with or without a god.

And how did it all start 14 bilion years ago

Hahaha. Very funny but very true.
The writer has quite a sense of humour.

The best team lost as usual

Let's use a project as an analogy.
You have the:
Project Manager, Business Analyst, Engineers e.t.c

All roles are very important but it is the project manager who directs the project. He is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the project.

The husband is the project manager in the home. He can consult with the other experts (wife), but the final decision comes from him.

There cannot be two project managers on one project.

Richiy:
What men want is respect. Just give it to them and you would find him trying so hard to please and protect you.

Simple

kestolove95:
Dix list is not complete with out mikel obi

Very true. Mikel was supposed to replace Okocha as the next great number10 for Nigeria.
Chelsea and Maurino killed his game, or atleast stunted his development.