Ranchhoddas:
TBJ is a fraud.
This changes nothing. Like you, I am wary of people who claim to be men of God. But what I am saying is the number of cases of healings that we witness gives me reason to believe there is something to them. It is logistically impossible for all of them to be staged. It is also unreasonable to say that this people have what you like to call false healing.
Instead of dismissing, you should take your time to visit this places and follow up their cases if you have the time and resources.
This makes more sense to me than staying at home and dismissing this cases without even giving a thought.
I am certain that many sick people get healed at churches. The mechanism of their healing is what I am unsure of.
There is no way I will believe that the multitude that go to these places are idiots. Something is taking them there.

Martinez19:
You exist or shall I say "exit"

Ranchhoddas:

I am certain that many sick people get healed at churches. The mechanism of their healing is what I am unsure of.

Nwaikuku2:
Then who created us or should i say how does human, earth and all that in it came to exist?

Ranchhoddas:
No I don't. But I have no reason to believe they are lying. And I am not gullible or anything.
Tell me, what would be their motive? The motives of not just one, two, or three people. Many people with different cases of healing.
Oyakhilome's healing school has being going on for years. Do you really want to tell me that no single sick person has being healed for years and it still going on? No one?

Of course they may be cases of fake miracles, what it means is that not everyone gets healed for some reason or the other. My argument is that some people get miracle cures from religious places. Clear cut medicine-defying miracles that will be visible to any honest and impartial observer.
I am not sure why they happen. But they happen.

To the unbeliever, no proof is enough

hahn:


It would be evident

budaatum:

There is a thread on here about the fraudulent healing done in Oyakhilome's church. If I find it.

Martinez19:
Lol. The fact that christ embassy healing school and other faith healing programmes go on for years should be a clear demonstration on how great human gullibility, stupidity and bias are not the legitimacy of miracles. A lot of people have spoken about the scam of christ embassy healing schools but their voices have been drowned by blw sheeps and their organisation.

Psychic shops have been on for years, those it mean there is something legitimate about it?

johnydon22:
How?

Ranchhoddas:
SirJoh.n is the author. I know it. It changes nothing. My comments still. One fake does not take out the rest. The rest are my concern. It should not happen at all.

LordReed:


The short answer is yes, it is still meat but of course I expect that by the time it is commercially available it would be very palatable both in taste and nutrition.

Some microorganisms are good some are bad, the bad ones should be eliminated.

Correct reality? I don't see it that way. I see it as eliminating those things that would otherwise lessen wellbeing.

budaatum:

Well, unlike you, one is enough to make me wonder and research deeper. And my research suggests the position I hold is truer than the one you appear to just chose to believe.

hahn:


It would be evident

Ranchhoddas:
Lol
One is enough for you because you already have an idea of what God, miracles etc should. Once it does not conform to your preconceptions you dismiss in the usual atheist fashion.

LordReed:


You are lumping objects with their potential to be misused or to create bad situations. Thats a bad argument. You are saying that because lack exacerbates desire then removing desire gets rid of lack, that is putting the cart before the horse.

How about we remove lack and leave desire intact. Then you are free to have all your desires without lack. That IMO is much better solution than removing desire or any other thing just because it has the potential to be in a bad situation.

Desire and lack are very separate concepts.

Desire is a the longing to fulfil a need or want and even after being fulfilled that desire still potentially exists. Lack is the absence of the object that will fulfill a desire. Desire does not cease even when an abundance of fulfilling objects are present.

One thing is at any particular time in the presence of an abundance of all fulfilling objects not all desires are being fulfilled. For example you have a harem of every type of desirable woman food and drink of every type and taste, entertainment and very other thing you desire. There is no way you will be eating, drinking, watch television, read book, listen to music, have sex, talk to friends, indulge your hobby, etc all at the same time. No matter how many groups of things you do at any moment there others you can't do. Therefore there must remain a desire.

Anoher thing is satisfaction is usually temporary. Nobody remains satisfied forever. Desires are always temporarily satiated.

I posit that if we lived in a universe that did not constantly threaten to annihilate us we would seek other ways to drive ourselves.

Take for example the difference between religious theists and atheists, the former asserts that purpose is to serve a god or gods while the latter denies. Does it mean atheist can no longer find purpose for life because they no longer think worshipping a god is not a purpose they ascribe to?

Any universe into which we evolve will provide its own linchpins for purpose.

This just lumps everything with no regard for discerning what is can be categorized as bad/evil.

Desire is not bad,

temperature difference is not bad,

these are some of the factors that enable one to appreciate things like icecream or a chilled drink. Do you need to taste shit in other to appreciate the taste of icecream?

Evil/bad is NOT necessary,

it forms a part of our experience does not mean we will lose anything substantial if it doesn't exist.

hahn:


What was your question again?

Ranchhoddas:
Lol
One is enough for you because you already have an idea of what God, miracles etc should. Once it does not conform to your preconceptions you dismiss in the usual atheist fashion.

budaatum:

My dear man, one is not enough for me! I've been at it since I was 7 and people like you were claiming Oyinbo rats talk. Surely you don't think I have not grown since then!

You dismiss me in a "usual atheist fashion", yet I bet you'd claim you are not an atheist! For your information, any atheist, or anyone for that matter, who refuses to see the evidence for want of sticking to preconceptions, is blind. The cure is mud that is spat on and rubbed in the eye!

johnydon22:
No. As i expected i am going to spend this comment repeating everything i said trying to bring you to understand these concepts and their philosophical implication.

1. I pointed lack as the evil.

2. I made a philosophical stretch by talking about desire which i made obvious on my post "if i am to make a philosophical stretch" which is another way of saying "i can also argue that desire is bad" which is not primarily my argument.

LOL. How exactly do you desire something you already infinitely have?

That is an absurd notion. You cannot desire happiness if there is no sadness. Sadness is a necessary evil that fuels the meaning of happiness.

Are you sure you understand that opposing concepts derive meaning from each other because it is apparent that you don't.


Oh i agree.



I am not sure you understand the implication of erasing the negatives. There is no desire to live if you live in a world where you can't die. Where is the desire for wealth in infinite wealth?

A desire which in essence is made possible by the lack of that present time. If you are having sex it means that you can't be reading a book or doing any other thing you mentioned hypothetically, you do not lack them by principle of their unavailability but rather by principle of your incapability to do them at that moment in time.

You see? for desire to exist in this your world, you must somehow fit lack into the equation because without it, there can't be desire. You need to think really carefully about these things, understand the consequentiality of concepts in effect.

You are employing a principle of temporality derived from this world where lack is an inevitability. In a world where there is no lack, temporarily is unlikely.

In this world, it is possible for a man with $100b to desire more money because $100b is not infinite. Such a person lacks $101b. But, a person with an infinite wealth is incapable of desiring more money.


LOL. And these other ways i am sure will somehow be hinged on a certain form of lack.

We study science today due to the inevitability of our doom, we invent technologies, to bypass the constant threat and horrors of this existence, an intrinsic purpose is derived naturally from such necessary evil as has been shown.

LOL. These purposes are arbitrary assertions but an intrinsic purpose derived from the necessities of natural evils are reconcilable with reality.
Example, tell me how?

Mention 10 purposes in a world like heaven (I assume you know every characteristics of heaven)


No. it doesn't, perhaps you simply don't grasp the profound depth of conceptual argument here.

I can say, i did not argue it is intrinsically bad.

But on a second note to also stretch i can also argue that it is in fact bad. Tell me why it is not bad? I have actually shown above how desire can be demonstrably posited as bad.

In Buddhism, Desire lies at the foundation of every suffering and this is true. And if suffering is bad, then that which gives suffering power is the ultimate bad.

Now, demonstrate to me how desire isn't bad.

It is in fact an existential threat, why do you think we derived a sense of purpose to seek shelter and clothing?

In a world where all you have ever tasted is ice-cream, you can't really appreciate ice-cream because there is no other taste to show you how special the taste of an ice-cream is.

Here: You have experienced very bitter and sour tastes. You know how hot and dry your throat can get and the cold soothing feel of an ice-cream nullifies this effect, the sweetness of the ice-cream taste is made special by your knowledge of a less pleasing taste.

Understand this, opposing concepts are only meaningful against each other. There is no good if there is no evil, so the very meaning of good is based on the actuality of evil.

Evil is just as necessary as good which i have over and over shown.

You have not successfully shown us the practicality of this your no evil world.

We lose meaning without the existence of negatives.

What is happiness without sadness?
What is joy without pain?
What is sweetness without bitter?

Meaning is derived from opposites.

Lack is a natural evil.

Desire is the fuel on which suffering from lack burns.

HellVictorinho:


Are you guys really doing this? "Good" and "Evil" are just words.Reality is a bitch and these arguments can't fix that.

HellVictorinho:


I get it.You're concerned with the wellbeing of animals.Animal-rights activism is not a bad idea. But,necessity precedes inventions. Futuristic activities are probably necessary. They are not SURELY necessary. So if some scientists are already doing stuff like that,it's simply because of their curiosity,"which could kill the cat"

LordReed:


I don't understand your point. Are you saying proposing and executing solutions to our bads and evils is unwarranted? That we should accept our condition and live with the good and bad because bad is necessary?

gensteejay:

I think OP has done justice to the principle of polarity, which is also related to the principle of correspondence in philosophy.

Good forces will always be balanced by evil forces in our world of duality. Good people, scientists, etc. strive to join the former group and bad ones associate with the latter. It's all a matter of choice, one that comes with consequences.

Recognising the fact that good and bad are relative, and not universal, doesn't mean one should condone evils and not seek ways of eradicating them. But an utopian world, devoid of evils and bad things, is unrealistic and is only attainable in reverie.

johnydon22:
Hahahahahahahahaha i give up.

johnydon22:


I thought this was apparent.

Anyway, I was even referring to a kind of evil we regard as natural evil.

LordReed seem to not grasp how opposing concepts are only meaningful together. Remove one and the other is simply meaningless.

A Utopian world is simply absurd.

urahara:


Absence if evidence is not evidence of absence

johnydon22:


I thought this was apparent.

Anyway, I was even referring to a kind of evil we regard as natural evil.

LordReed seem to not grasp how opposing concepts are only meaningful together. Remove one and the other is simply meaningless.

A Utopian world is simply absurd.

LordReed:


What you don't seem to grasp is I understand but I do not agree with it.

gensteejay:

I think OP has done justice to the principle of polarity, which is also related to the principle of correspondence in philosophy.

Good forces will always be balanced by evil forces in our world of duality. Good people, scientists, etc. strive to join the former group and bad ones associate with the latter. It's all a matter of choice, one that comes with consequences.

Recognising the fact that good and bad are relative, and not universal, doesn't mean one should condone evils and not seek ways of eradicating them. But an utopian world, devoid of evils and bad things, is unrealistic and is only attainable in reverie.

LordReed:


Only when one is considering absolutes like religious people do. If as you say it is all relative then a utopia that has relatively eliminated evil is a possibility. I don't believe in a heaven concept so I cannot be considering an absolute perfection, a world like that as johnydon22 has pointed out is a dead one.

LordReed:


Only when one is considering absolutes like religious people do. If as you say it is all relative then a utopia that has relatively eliminated evil is a possibility. I don't believe in a heaven concept so I cannot be considering an absolute perfection,

a world like that as johnydon22 has pointed out is a dead one.

johnydon22:


So, imperfection Aka Mr inevitable evil(natural evil or man-made evil) is necessary then?

All I did was demonstrate the necessity of evil by showing a world without evil is purposely dead.

Thank you