johnydon22:
Guilty as charged

Gbam!

MTN is therefore discharged and acquiited

johnydon22:


Ayam juss tired.. 10k under 2weeks them chop me, na winch be this?

this must be my village people at work

spectranet is better ,you will have unlimited data at night and subscription is 10 k permonth

Jonydon22 abeg u be lawyer? Ur fact jst dey scater me brain--too much BRO -tell dem d truth :Dx

johnydon22:
therefor in order to bring up God or glory as a subject we must first of all define what glory or God is for that particular purpose.


And the point is becoming more clear, which glory am i talking about here which then falls on me to define the glory i am talking about.

Therefore the whole argument rest on a need for definition.


If the state of Godhood is just a notion conceived in the human mind that can be conferred on "ANYTHING" we want then this makes the word GOD to lack meaning.

for instance: If i refer to my phone as a sandal.
what then is a sandal? if i define a sandal as something worn on the feet to protect me from the ground.

the next question is; Does my phone then fall into this definition of sandal?

if No. then how is it a sandal?

this also can be applied to the usage of the word "God"
if i refer to my sandal as "GOD" on what rope do i hang this statement?

is there a particular definition i base my conferment of God on the sandal? if not, then why is it no longer a sandal?

Meaning is a child of definition and definition begets reason, to confer a notion without reason makes the notion in itself meaningless.





so my brother how do we define God?

Is God defined as anything we say God is?

if this is so then God as a word may yet be meaningless as "Christian atheism" defines it.

stephenmorris:
ebuka you are always asking the same questions over and over again

Hahaha

4kings:
@ Johnydon22
Brilliant!!! mehn...
Miss you bro...

I dae enjoy the guy response. Tho, I ve come across a similar discussion like this on atheist Republic and I must confess, ebuka will have no good answer

What the fvck is logical theist?

How did you arrive there? Is Yahweh dead?


This KingEbukasBlog has lost it.

4kings:
@ Johnydon22
Brilliant!!! mehn...
Miss you bro...

And thanks for sharing!!

AnonyNymous:

And thanks for sharing!!

Anytime bro

adepeter26:

I dae enjoy the guy response. Tho, I ve come across a similar discussion like this on atheist Republic and I must confess, ebuka will have no good answer

i dey wait for ebuka too, though i think this thread was just to seek for reasonable opinions.

stephenmorris:
ebuka you are always asking the same questions over and over again

Because I dont get reasonable responses . Only PastorAIO and Johnydon22 understand the question and their responses have been pertinent .

johnydon22:
Which begs the question, what does it mean here?

So is the sole position of being the first cause makes God God to you or is God still God whether he/she/it was the first cause or not?

So now we are getting a definition which now breaks down into many subjective meanings taking us back to my first post, it is a problem of definition. The position of an atheist can only be ascertained if you bring out a definition of God to work with here.

For something to be meaningful it must have definition, so yes if you define God then God is meaningful but if God can be conferred on anything and everything without definition or underlying essence then it is meaningless.

it is very simple actually like i said before, arguments of definition can only be put to rest by coining an established definition.

Let me throw in another analogy to demonstrate.

If we define a desktop computer as any computer that can be used while on a desk this is a definition.

I can then tell you that my laptop is a desktop, you must ask why?

What makes my laptop a desktop?

I will simply answer that based on the definition of desktop above, my laptop is currently on a desk therefore it is a desktop.

I have given a reason why i regard my laptop to be a desktop meaning that there is a coined definition of desktop, if i give such an answer as the word "desktop" can be conferred on any computer, this is vague and lacks definition.

So the Pantheist might say that the universe is God, an atheist or agnostic if you will can simply reply "well i just call it the universe"

if you have no established reason or definition to root your basis of referring to the universe as God then the word "God" in reference to the universe is not binding and unnecessary since we already have an established alias for creation which is "universe or cosmos"

If you say God means the first Cause, one can simply say under which reason is the first cause God, by what definition can we label the first cause God or what makes the first cause God or what is the first cause.

Or then What is God?

I said God to me is the First Cause since it is the necessary being , the reason for the existence of everything . It is Supreme , having the power to create or sustain everything that exists including our universe (having in mind the possibility that God could create other realities different from ours and has to power to sustain them including Itself )

But with the understanding of what atheism stands for , this does not make the First Cause a God . Like I told PastorAIO , an atheist does not want you to confer godhood upon any entity .

So the burden to define God is on the atheist because He rejects the deification of just any entity including the First Cause . That is no entity is worthy to be called God to an atheist . You dig?

ScepticalPyrrho:
What the fvck is logical theist?

Logic is inherent in theism . In fact , "logical" there is redundant

But we can't say same for an atheist .

How did you arrive there? Is Yahweh dead?

You are an atheist not an anti-Yahweh . Not every theist calls the First Cause Yahweh .

This KingEbukasBlog has lost it.

Lost what exactly ?

KingEbukasBlog:


Nope . It could different things to different people . God to me means the First Cause or the Necessary Being whose existence is the reason why anything exists . God to a pantheist is the totality of everything . God to a panentheist is the soul of the universe .

So its not meaningless

But the meaningfulness of atheism with this understanding is elusive , so please can you help me find it ?

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

Intelligent discussion, followed.

KingEbukasBlog:


I said God to me is the First Cause since it is the necessary being , the reason for the existence of everything . It is Supreme , having the power to create or sustain everything that exists including our universe (having in mind the possibility that God could create other realities different from ours and has to power to sustain them including Itself )

I don't think there is sufficient knowledge or understanding of whatever the "first cause" is to state that:
-It is a being
-It is supreme
-It sustains everything in our universe
-and that it can even create different realities.

This for me means that by your definition of a god, you yourself cannot possibly know enough to call the first cause a god.

"I asked if it was the rejection of the deification of an entity or the denial in the existence of an entity because its a deity"

Also to your original question, I reject the deification of any entity as I do not believe in the existence of an entity that can be termed a deity. A deity defined as a god or a supreme being or creator.

Your question I think already implies the existence of an entity that is a deity or that can be called a deity, however if you don't believe in the existence of such an entity (that is a deity) then you cannot be in denial of it's existence and you are automatically against the deification of any entity because you don't believe such an entity, an entity that warrants deification, exists.

To help explain my point. Let's say I don't believe in ghosts and someone covers you in white robes and says-"look, this is a ghost!". I say no it's not, and then they ask "do you reject labelling anything a ghost or are you just denying the existence of this white robed thing because it is a ghost".

Because I do not believe in the existence of ghosts I obviously reject labelling anything a ghost. Also because I don't believe in ghosts I deny the assertion that you in white robes is a ghost, not that you do not exist because you obviously do, but I disagree with the idea that you in white robes is a ghost whose existence I am denying rather than an entity in white robes whose existence I acknowledging but whose status as a ghost I am denying because I do not believe in ghosts.

So thinking about this again-the core of the issue, which johnydon already figured out, is: What can you call a deity or a god, without a definition anything can be called a god. I don't think the burden of proof is on the atheist to define what a god is as we didn't claim the god exists, that would be the theists. Now taking the definition of atheism as the lack of belief in the existence of gods. Without a clear definition of what a god is then atheism is automatically restricted to rejecting the deification of any entity (albeit ignorantly as the lack of a definition of a god makes it difficult to logically reject the deification of anything). But at the same time this presents an issue for you as a Christian theist because everything and anything is and can be a god and yet nothing is because there is no clear idea of what a god is. However if the qualities and properties of a god are clearly defined then atheism can move on to the second issue "the denial in the existence of an entity because its a deity" once the idea of a deity is clearly defined, the atheist can than argue that the entity you have described lacks the qualities and properties of an entity that can be termed a deity.

johnydon22:


Very good question but then one look at the problem raised one can deduce it is just a argument of definition, a pinch of a precise definition is enough to put everything at rest for such an argument.

I can even explain such argument with same analogy that can be used to explain the true scotsman fallacy.

Pay attention: Every man from Scotland is a scotsman

the statement above is the definition of a scotsman, once you are from scotland you are a scotsman by definition.

I may come along and say a true scotsman is any man that can close one eye and leave the other open for a minute. this redefinition automaticlly changes what a scotsman is to my audience if they employ my later definition.

By employing my definition any man in the world, even a man from Nigeria can be a scotsman as long as he can close one eye for a minute.

So what exactly is a scotsman?

That is the argument of definition that you have just raised. I can call anything God by my definition, so if an atheist says there is no God does he also say my Shoe that i call a God does not exist or is not a God?

Well my shoe can be God but also cannot be God.

It depends on your employment of a certain definition, A man from Nigeria can be a scotsman by a certain definition and will not by another definition.

So the question is: What is God?

what makes something God?
is there an essence that makes someone or something God?
are there characters that you must exhibit then you become a God?


What is God?

Once we establish this definition i think we can then use it as a sieve to answer the question, if we on this thread are going to have a precise definition of God we are going to work with then we can comfortably define what we believe or what we dont, we can devise a category of how we place the validity of what God is or not on this thread based on our coined definition.

I have once asked on a thread on creation and God: Is God God because it created the universe or is it God whether or not it created the universe?

another way of asking, is God still god even if it didnt create the universe?

what makes God, God?

Cc. PastorAIO being a while brother

I wish I could give you a handshake

KingEbukasBlog:


I said God to me is the First Cause since it is the necessary being , the reason for the existence of everything . It is Supreme , having the power to create or sustain everything that exists including our universe (having in mind the possibility that God could create other realities different from ours and has to power to sustain them including Itself )

To this I asked, is this first cause God by the virtue of being the first cause or creator or is it God whether or not it was the first cause or creator.

We want to understand the underlying usage of the word God, we need to established a capped definition of God as we are going to use it in order to derive meaning.

But with the understanding of what atheism stands for , this does not make the First Cause a God . Like I told PastorAIO , an atheist does not want you to confer godhood upon any entity .

like I gave an example with desktop in order to confer the title of God on anyone or entity you must define Godhood so we can establish what and what falls under the God umbrella.

If the word can be used anyhow we deem fit then it is meaningless.

E.g let me wear my God to the mall now.

What does God mean in this sentence? It can be anything but since it isn't specific (doesn't have any specific meaning) its useless and meaningless to use.

So in order to confer Godhood on anything you must first give reasons why that thing ceases to be same.

So the burden to define God is on the atheist because He rejects the deification of just any entity including the First Cause . That is no entity is worthy to be called God to an atheist . You dig?

Quite the contrary here brother, you are the one who uses the word "God", who confers it on anything you like, how is it so that someone else needs to define it for you?

On this particular thread I am not saying no entity is worthy to be called God, I am only asking " what does it mean to be God?"

stephenmorris:
spectranet is better ,you will have unlimited data at night and subscription is 10 k permonth

E dey Enugu?

KingEbukasBlog:


Logic is inherent in theism . In fact , "logical" there is redundant

But we can't say same for an atheist .



You are an atheist not an anti-Yahweh . Not every theist calls the First Cause Yahweh .



Lost what exactly ?

"First Cause" is a philosophical postulation. Early philosophers were engaged in unraveling the "Origin of the universe" rationally, independent of religious dogmas, that's how the possible existence of a "first cause" was proposed.

You claim it as if it makes your Yahweh-claim valid. Smh

KingEbukasBlog:


So to the Gnostic atheists , the universe does not exist if I call it a deity ??

So to the gnostic atheists , my mobile device does not exist if I call it a deity ?

Interesting !

Are you seriously this dumb

johnydon22 I see you.

Where is felixomor?

No one to give Ebuka support?

JackBizzle:
Where is felixomor?

Why you wan end this sweet discussion naw by mentioning felix

ModusOperandi:
Are you seriously this dumb

I really don't like conversing with ignorant people . The person I responded to understood my response, and I'm good with that .

If you want to how dumb I am , open a thread and give me 3 best reasons why you are an atheist. Mention me

adepeter26:


Why you wan end this sweet discussion naw by mentioning felix

Felix has been having a hard time with the 4evagod saga.

Maybe doing his favourite job of kissing ebuka's azz will cheer him up

johnydon22:

E dey Enugu?

Chisos, Oga Johnny u dey Enugu so? you know UNEC side?

KingEbukasBlog:


I really don't like conversing with ignorant people . The person I responded to understood my response, and I'm good with that .

If you want to know how dumb I am , open a thread and give me 3 best reasons why you are an atheist. Mention me

See vex
No slaughter the babe na...

AlvanT:
Chisos, Oga Johnny u dey Enugu so? you know UNEC side?

I live quite close

dalaman:
johnydon22 I see you.

Baba your boy dey loyal

johnydon22:
therefor in order to bring up God or glory as a subject we must first of all define what glory or God is for that particular purpose.


And the point is becoming more clear, which glory am i talking about here which then falls on me to define the glory i am talking about.

Therefore the whole argument rest on a need for definition.


If the state of Godhood is just a notion conceived in the human mind that can be conferred on "ANYTHING" we want then this makes the word GOD to lack meaning.

for instance: If i refer to my phone as a sandal.
what then is a sandal? if i define a sandal as something worn on the feet to protect me from the ground.

the next question is; Does my phone then fall into this definition of sandal?

if No. then how is it a sandal?

this also can be applied to the usage of the word "God"
if i refer to my sandal as "GOD" on what rope do i hang this statement?

is there a particular definition i base my conferment of God on the sandal? if not, then why is it no longer a sandal?

Meaning is a child of definition and definition begets reason, to confer a notion without reason makes the notion in itself meaningless.





so my brother how do we define God?

Is God defined as anything we say God is?

if this is so then God as a word may yet be meaningless as "Christian atheism" defines it.

Gbam! Gbamer! Gbamest!

johnydon22:

I live quite close

Wawu,I hope we can link up sometime,lemme see this walking encyclopedia BTW it's me Eldaillest,hope u remember me? dis is an alt.will modify soon.

johnydon22:
Which begs the question, what does it mean here?

So is the sole position of being the first cause makes God God to you or is God still God whether he/she/it was the first cause or not?



So now we are getting a definition which now breaks down into many subjective meanings taking us back to my first post, it is a problem of definition. The position of an atheist can only be ascertained if you bring out a definition of God to work with here.

For something to be meaningful it must have definition, so yes if you define God then God is meaningful but if God can be conferred on anything and everything without definition or underlying essence then it is meaningless.



it is very simple actually like i said before, arguments of definition can only be put to rest by coining an established definition.

Let me throw in another analogy to demonstrate.

If we define a desktop computer as any computer that can be used while on a desk this is a definition.

I can then tell you that my laptop is a desktop, you must ask why?

What makes my laptop a desktop?

I will simply answer that based on the definition of desktop above, my laptop is currently on a desk therefore it is a desktop.

I have given a reason why i regard my laptop to be a desktop meaning that there is a coined definition of desktop, if i give such an answer as the word "desktop" can be conferred on any computer, this is vague and lacks definition.

So the Pantheist might say that the universe is God, an atheist or agnostic if you will can simply reply "well i just call it the universe"

if you have no established reason or definition to root your basis of referring to the universe as God then the word "God" in reference to the universe is not binding and unnecessary since we already have an established alias for creation which is "universe or cosmos"

If you say God means the first Cause, one can simply say under which reason is the first cause God, by what definition can we label the first cause God or what makes the first cause God or what is the first cause.

Or then What is God?

You have been an atheist for more than 6 years now right ? What have you been disbelieving as an atheist ? Its utterly gratuitous for you to ask me to define God as an ATHEIST . Let me explain why it makes no sense to throw the question back at me

Example
I'm against totalitarian governments and we all know through out history atheists have always headed totalitarian governments and have been responsible for over 200 million deaths in 100 years . Now imagine you see me and ask me to explain why I'm against such a government and my response is that you should tell me what a totalitarian government is , wouldn't I look stupid ?

So as an atheist , what have you been disbelieving or rejecting all this while ? Do you reject the deification of an entity or do you deny the existence of an entity because its a god or its deified ?

KingEbukasBlog:



You have been an atheist for more 6 years now right ? What have you been disbelieving as an atheist ? Its gratuitous for you to ask me to define God as an ATHEIST . Let me explain why it makes no sense to throw the question back at me

Example

I'm against totalitarian governments and we all know through out history atheists have always headed totalitarian governments and have been responsible for over 200 million deaths in 100 years . Now imagine you see me and ask me to explain why I'm against such a government and my response is that you should tell me what a totalitarian government is , wouldn't I look stupid ?

So as an atheist , what have you been disbelieving or rejecting all this while ? Do you reject the deification of an entity or do you deny the existence of an entity because its a god or its deified .

The bold is false.

The wicked totalitarian kings in the bible, were they atheists?

Was Hitler an atheist?


Was Saddam an atheist? Mubutu? Idi Amin?

KingEbukasBlog:



You have been an atheist for more than 6 years now right ? What have you been disbelieving as an atheist ? Its utterly gratuitous for you to ask me to define God as an ATHEIST . Let me explain why it makes no sense to throw the question back at me

Example
I'm against totalitarian governments and we all know through out history atheists have always headed totalitarian governments and have been responsible for over 200 million deaths in 100 years . Now imagine you see me and ask me to explain why I'm against such a government and my response is that you should tell me what a totalitarian government is , wouldn't I look stupid ?

So as an atheist , what have you been disbelieving or rejecting all this while ? Do you reject the deification of an entity or do you deny the existence of an entity because its a god or its deified ?

I once asked you this question: What does it mean to deify?

If you deify your sandals what makes it seize to be a sandal and takes on the nature of Godhood.

I don't deify things, so it is up to you who do to teach me what it means to deify things then i can easily lay out to you what it means to be in my position as one who lacks belief in the deities.