Cheers01:


Then, there is the philosophical problem of creation. Who created the creator? Where does God come from? Did he create himself or he just always existed? If he always existed, what was he doing with himself all those billions of years it took our galaxy to be formed?

Learn here....

https://www.nairaland.com/4069527/what-created-god-response-atheist

vaxx:
Learn here....

https://www.nairaland.com/4069527/what-created-god-response-atheist

Bro, argue your points here. Don't shift people to other threads.

malvisguy212:
the op mind is made up, ( son of perdition ) one thing I know , winning argument does not validate the truth.

See this one. You cannot face the pop's arguments. Just stop giving excuses.

JeromeBlack:



Bro, argue your points here. Don't shift people to other threads.

i can't be repeating myself. It is nauseating. If you or Him want ask any question. You can decide to ask it here.

JeromeBlack:




See this one. You cannot face the pop's arguments. Just stop giving excuses.

oh , you're an atheist ? alright.

FOLYKAZE:


I have answered you but you keep repeating the same irrational questions. Is it that you have issue with comprehensiveness and understanding?

No, its not really adding up as it is sounding so straight forward in your head.

The purpose of spirituality is to connect oneself to the essence of another being. Do you understand this philosophical stance? I bet, you do

I will understand this the day u prove the spiritual exists.

In Yoruba spirituality, one essence is referred to as Ori. Ori generally mean consciousness, the innermost self or original self. That is the you that answers the philosophy question of "who am I?"

OK... Am I suppose to be executed at this?

Yoruba people believe everything that exist has an Ori (essence) and ase (energy).

Ya, people believe in a lot of things, even when they cannot prove it.

Therefore, a spiritualist connects its inner self to the Ori of the so called tree, sun or whatever, with the aim of annexing the ase (energy) of these entities.

Talk is cheap u know.

While everything has ori and ase (everything including tree, river and sun is conscious), Yoruba spirituality primarily focus on 401 orisa (selected consciousness). Each one of 'selected consciousness' is been studied, observed and experienced through spiritual arts which enable them to tap into the "selected consciousness" ase (energy).

Please prove to me how tree is conscious. What is it about tree or sun or stone that makes u say or that makes Yoruba people say its conscious?

You may not still understand but read about the practise of Yoga. It will help you understand how energy is been annexed spiritually.

I don't need to read more, all I need is proof.

Acknowledging the worth of something is the same thing as worshipping something. The way you present it as something different reveals how shallow your thinking is.

acknowledgment is quite different from worshipping. Stop saying falsehood just to win an argument. U can acknowledge without worshipping. However acknowledgment can be taking further to worship. U mustnt worship everything u acknowledged.

And thank goodness you admit people acknowledge money. Actually people acknowledge worth of money which mean they are worshipping money. Since money is been worshipped or revered, it becomes a God. Simple.

People acknowledge money, they don't worship money. I recognise that money is important and so I work had to get it.I don't worship money. I don't pray to it, I don't bow to it, I don't sing to it, .... I spend it!!!

It is also a silly attempt to stamp worshipping and prayer together as if they mean the same thing. Fan worship celebs but does that mean they pray to celebs? Maybe you don't know celebs are mini idols, ask Rihanna who claimed Fela is her God. It doesn't mean Rihanna pray to Fela in the corner of her room.

Worship includes a lot of activities towards the object of worship such as, praying to it, reverencing it, giving it scheduled attention, sacrificing to it, over humanising it... Yes some people worship Beyonce, but many of her fans think these people are crazy. A lot of her fans,many many of them do not worship her.

With the way you guys reason and argue aimlessly, I suspect you are toddlers.

Come out of our head for once and see how u sound like a toddler..he he.

Before you start all over again asking me irrational questions, you need to understand what spirituality is, how it is connectedness with nature, understand what is being and essence, and understand philosophy of existence. As at now, what you purge is embarrassing

U have started again...if I ask u to prove spiritual exists u will start running upandan.

FOLYKAZE:


You should be registered into crèche where you can start learning A for Apple, B for ball.

Afterward, you should start reading about personification, anthropomorphism, apotheosis, deification, and allegory.

Without understanding basic Alphabets, word and terminology, you are long lost discussing topic complex like this.

What's complex here?, simple question you're making it hard for yourself.

How did thunder become king of Oyo, you were presenting fairytales.

Just accept they are fairytales and we're cool.

You wish it was.

So far, I have presented historical and scientific facts embedded in the allegorical story.

Your retort into fallacy cannot save you.

No, you haven't presented any fact nor scientific fact, you're presenting fairytales. How can you make energy a person, does that even make any sense?

Energy is energy, it attributes, properties are not like a person that talk to people and behave like people.

Your public display of gross ignorance can make one sick

You should work hard on understanding simple terminologies and conceptions before engaging people that have other views.

The way your comrade rejects you, the woeful embarrassment you bring to your personality, and the unrelenting display of idiocy clearly shows you are a person without shame.

Peace out

Lmao!

Well the grass was once a person, he has wives and children, the grass talk to me and I worship the grass.

Alabanza grassee.

FOLYKAZE:


Your ancestors were great people who understood how nature works. They kept this knowledge with them through ages.

What more do you want to know? Go to your oldies and ask them to explain more of the spirituality to you. And instead of writing it off as myth, you should take your time to understand the message been passed.



You may keep your half baked knowledge to yourself. There was cosmic explosion which lead to continual expansion. You should read your books instead of arguing blinding on nairaland

I don't think our ancestors UNDERSTOOD nature per se. What they gave(the stories) are just the "logical" explanations of the phenomenon they observed. Not that they necessarily understood it.

Lxdd:


I don't think our ancestors UNDERSTOOD nature per se. What they gave(the stories) are just the "logical" explanations of the phenomenon they observed. Not that they necessarily understood it.

There is no way one can present a logical explanation for a phenomenon you do not understand. Understanding in this case might not be same with western scientific standard.

Lxdd:


I don't think our ancestors UNDERSTOOD nature per se. What they gave(the stories) are just the "logical" explanations of the phenomenon they observed. Not that they necessarily understood it.

There's no logic in making natural phenomena into some fairytales. They are fictions that entertain their imaginations/fantasies. Just like Teenage Ninja Turtles fighting kungfu.

What is the logic behind thunder becoming king of Oyo and having wives?

FOLYKAZE:


There is no way one can present a logical explanation for a phenomenon you do not understand. Understanding in this case might not be same with western scientific standard.

Very true. So such stories should not be treated as facts("electrical energy is Sango"

tintingz:
There's no logic in making natural phenomena into some fairytales. They are fictions that entertain their imaginations/fantasies. Just like Teenage Ninja Turtles fighting kungfu.

What is the logic behind thunder becoming king of Oyo and having wives?

You can't say that. Stories(according to Mr. Glass(Glass, 2019))(lol, I know, I'm referencing a movie) are what someone somewhere must have seen, experienced or felt. There is no absolute truth.
Good stories have a good metaphysical representation of natural phenomenon. They're not merely fantasies.

Lxdd:


Very true. So such stories should not be treated as facts("electrical energy is Sango"

When facts equal western standard.

vaxx:
i can't be repeating myself. It is nauseating. If you or Him want ask any question. You can decide to ask it here.

Okay, according to the OP, if God's power is truly limitless, he should be able to create a God more powerful than himself.

This is compelling argument showing how ridiculous the concept of omnipotence is.

How do you reply?

malvisguy212:
oh , you're an atheist ? alright.

Ogbeni, face the argument.

Atheist ni, ableist ko.

Lxdd:

You can't say that. Stories(according to Mr. Glass(Glass, 2019))(lol, I know, I'm referencing a movie) are what someone somewhere must have seen, experienced or felt. There is no absolute truth.
Good stories have a good metaphysical representation of natural phenomenon. They're not merely fantasies.

Good stories are good stories but they are fantasies/fictions when they are made up.

JeromeBlack:


Okay, according to the OP, if God's power is truly limitless, he should be able to create a God more powerful than himself.

This is compelling argument showing how ridiculous the concept of omnipotence is.

How do you reply?

problem of logic 101......

You were able to ask this question because you asked in a language that allow paradox.

Check out similar question in mathematical language.

Is 5 still 5, if it is 50 ?

You see Nonsensical questions don’t have answers, they are only recognized as lacking sense.

vaxx:
problem of logic 101......

You were able to ask this question because you asked in a language that allow paradox.

Check out similar question in mathematical language.

Is 5 still 5, if it is 50 ?

You see Nonsensical questions don’t have answers, they are only recognized as lacking sense.

More like discovering that there are numbers 1 cannot divide without remainder after being told that 1 can divide all numbers without remainder.

LordReed:


More like discovering that there are numbers 1 cannot divide without remainder after being told that 1 can divide all numbers without remainder.

You see the contradiction. Numbers don't work that way, even if the language structure is fine linguistically.

Check out this paradoxical statement ."" Name me a number that is greater than infinity"" . That may sound pretty fine linguistically ( cus you may say infinity plus 1) but very bad mathematically and logically becuse numbers doesn't work that way.

vaxx:
problem of logic 101......

You were able to ask this question because you asked in a language that allow paradox.

Check out similar question in mathematical language.

Is 5 still 5, if it is 50 ?

You see Nonsensical questions don’t have answers, they are only recognized as lacking sense.

Clearly, you don't understand how logic works. There are three logical problems with your argument.

1. The op's question about God's ability to create another one is a result from a premise and conclusion. Your question is just flat out nonsense.
Below is the valid deductive reasoning for OP's question:

Premise 1- God is omnipotent
Premise 2- This means that God can create anything
Conclusion- Therefore, God should be able to create another God just like himself or even more powerful.


2. A paradox is possible in any language. A paradox relies on something being true and false at the same time. True and false statements exist in all languages.


3. "Is 5 still 5 if it is 50?" Is just a nonsensical question. Write it in words and see that you are easily visually confused

IS FIVE STILL FIVE, IF IT IS FIFTY?

vaxx:
You see the contradiction. Numbers don't work that way, even if the language structure is fine linguistically.

Check out this paradoxical statement ."" Name me a number that is greater than infinity"" . That may sound pretty fine linguistically ( cus you may say infinity plus 1) but very bad mathematically and logically becuse numbers doesn't work that way.

But you were attempting to equate the nature of the god with mathematics, how do we know that they are in fact comparable/equatable?

JeromeBlack:


Clearly, you don't understand how logic works. There are three logical problems with your argument.

1. The op's question about God's ability to create another one is a result from a premise and conclusion. Your question is just flat out nonsense.
Below is the valid deductive reasoning for OP's question:

Premise 1- God is omnipotent
Premise 2- This means that God can create anything
Conclusion- Therefore, God should be able to create another God just like himself or even more powerful.


2. A paradox is possible in any language. A paradox relies on something being true and false at the same time. True and false statements exist in all languages.


3. "Is 5 still 5 if it is 50?" Is just a nonsensical question. Write it in words and see that you are easily visually confused

IS FIVE STILL FIVE, IF IT IS FIFTY?

Your whole write up is full of logic abuse....You don't even understand your own illogicalities..... ....



Your postulation are logically inconsistent as i have demonsrate mathematically. Just check my reply to the next moniker. Stop abusing logic.

LordReed:


But you were attempting to equate the nature of the god with mathematics, how do we know that they are in fact comparable/equatable?

i am not attempting on anything God here. I am only demonstrating the illogicalities in that paradox by putting it in a logical language ( mathematics).

vaxx:
Your whole write up is full of logic abuse....You don't even understand your own illogicalities..... ....



Your postulation are logically inconsistent as i have demonsrate mathematically. Just check my reply to the next moniker. Stop abusing logic.

You and lordreed were arguing out of point.

I gave a clear deductive argument to show the reasoning behind the mockery of the concept of omnipotence

JeromeBlack:



You and lordreed were arguing out of point.

I gave a clear deductive argument to show the reasoning behind the mockery of the concept of omnipotence

it is because you yourself is ignorant of what you are discussing. Deductive argument is meant to provide conclusive reasoning and not compelling argument.

The logic you’re referring to as deductive logic, which is a tool to ensure that your arguments work but based on illogicalities.. If you proof something illogically, you’re saying you want to design an argument that is ensured to be faulty. And that is what you are currently doing.

vaxx:
it is because you yourself is ignorant of what you are discussing. Deductive argument is meant to provide conclusive reasoning and not compelling argument.

The logic you’re referring to as deductive logic, which is a tool to ensure that your arguments work but based on illogicalities.. If you proof something illogically, you’re saying you want to design an argument that is ensured to be faulty. And that is what you are currently doing.

You are wrong.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

If someone puts forward a deductive argument, you can rebut it by either proving that is not valid or not sound.

That is, you disprove a deductive argument in the two ways:

1. You prove that it is not valid. This means that the premise does not meet the conclusion.

2. You prove that it is not sound. This means that the premise is not true.



You did none of that.

JeromeBlack:



You and lordreed were arguing out of point.

I gave a clear deductive argument to show the reasoning behind the mockery of the concept of omnipotence

In what way was I arguing out of point?

JeromeBlack:


You are wrong.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

If someone puts forward a deductive argument, you can rebut it by either proving that is not valid or not sound.

That is, you disprove a deductive argument in the two ways:

1. You prove that it is not valid. This means that the premise does not meet the conclusion.

2. You prove that it is not sound. This means that the premise is not true.



You did none of that.

When I said you are ignorant of the discussion, it is even an understatement. You are even poor in your thinking process.

You yourself already establish that paradox is allowed in every language . Since true or false statement exist in every language. I push you further that statement is false. it is wrong mathematically and I demonstrate it by showing you evidence of your illogicalities. Is 5 still 5 if it is 50?


In mathematical language, nonsense question can't be answered as it is lacking sense.

vaxx:
i am not attempting on anything God here. I am only demonstrating the illogicalities in that paradox by putting it in a logical language ( mathematics).

You most certainly did:

vaxx:
problem of logic 101......

You were able to ask this question because you asked in a language that allow paradox.

Check out similar question in mathematical language.

Is 5 still 5, if it is 50 ?

It's very direct attempt to compare the god's nature with mathematics and then when faced with the prospect that your analogy will show you up you retreat and say no.

LordReed:


You most certainly did:



It's very direct attempt to compare the god's nature with mathematics and then when faced with the prospect that your analogy will show you up you retreat and say no.

understand the difference between comparism and illustration..

vaxx:
understand the difference between comparism and illustration..

And which one were you attempting?

LordReed:


And which one were you attempting?

what i am doing there is illustration, demonstrating that such language is wrong in mathematical context.