huxley:

Yes, I do not know what God is.  If history is any thing to go by, there have been more than 10,000 gods venerated bu humans - and today there are probably no less than 1000 gods worldwide that still form part of the human pantheone of gods.  So I (and all the other atheists) are justified in asking you to define your god.  For all we know, you god might very well exist, but how can I tell it from the god of the muslims, hindus, eskimos, etc.

It is obvious that you have boned up on some philosophical arguments for the existence of some god(s), which is a very noble intellectual act and I highly commended you for that.  In a similar vein, I would like to ask you to use you philosophical bent to justify why you think we could go about arguing for something when the very nature of that something is NOT is under dispute.  So to summarise;


Given your strong philosophical inclination, can you provide some philosophical justification for arguing for or against an entity whose very nature is undefined.

I don't know what you are talking about here.

No one is forcing you to come and discuss or debate here. You came here on your own accord and you have your set of ideas or opinions on the subject. It means that if you want to participate in the discussion, you have to familiarize yourself with the topic. If you are not familiar with what the discussion is, then sit it out and let honest people discuss the issues. This is like watching people discussing a sufficiently complex topic like say "Wave-Particle Duality of Matter and Energy", then jumping in from left field to demand of the serious discussants a definition for matter or energy. I am not to be saddled with the task of helping you out on that score; so I have no need to "justify why you think we could go about arguing for something when the very nature of that something is NOT is under dispute."

Again, let me spell it out for you: You know what side of the discussion "theism(God) vs atheism(No God)" that mirrors your worldview, and you know the reasons why you favor that worldview. If you want to be part of any fruitful discussion here, start by making a positive claim for your side of the discussion. Yes, you can start out by making your own logical case which would be examined. You don't get to sit on some form of 'judgment panel" to arbitrate on what makes sense to your own strict naturalistic worldview.

If your contention is that you do not understand what is being discussed, then kindly sit it out.

Here’s a concise formulation of the Cosmological Argument (for those who may not bother to do the necessary research):

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

What this means quite plainly is that the universe along with space, time, matter and energy came into being. The universe is not a necessary entity; it is a contingent entity. It does not have an infinite past. The only necessary being/entities one can think of are  a) numbers b) an unembodied personal mind. This is the conception of God that theists work with—a personal, unembodied, spaceless, infinite, eternal mind. It goes without saying that numbers though necessary, do not have any creative ability. It follows that the cause of the universe is a mind greater than the universe—by which we mean something that is immaterial, boundless, spaceless and eternally pre-existent.

How is it then that when you present the Cosmological argument, an atheist’s response is “What Caused God?” That question simply shows a misunderstanding of the argument. Anyone asking this question should familiarize him/herself with what “necessary” and “contingent” entities are. That question is as laughable as asking “What makes a triangle have three sides whose angles add up to 180 degrees?”, or “Why should a triangle have three sides with angles that add up to 180 degrees?” The answer is as simple as saying “That is what a triangle is DEFINED as”. I have nothing to discuss with anyone who wants to argue with definitions. If you do not like the definition given, go ahead, define yours and see if we may agree or disagree.

Another argument an atheist may make when confronted with the Cosmological Argument is to suggest that “the universe is uncaused” which is a patently false idea given its finitude in the past. An atheist is left with the worst option of declaring that the “universe just popped out of nothing, from nothing and by nothing” and that I suggest is even worse than magic. Nothing pops out of nothing, from nothing, by nothing. To suggest otherwise is to be painfully irrational. Not even radioactive decay; or virtual particles which merely arise and disappear from fluctuations in the quantum vacuum—a veritable ‘sea’ of energy.

To refute the argument, you have to shoot down or falsify the premises. Otherwise, you'll arrive at the painful conclusion whether you want to or not.

huxley:

What is God?  Please, tell us first what God is and how you come to know about him.  Then we can begin to work out arguments for/against his existence.  Without that we would be groping in the dark.

All the so-called philosophical arguments you have given so far are also equally valid for Sussicorn.  So should we believe in Sussicorn?

If you don’t know what God is, then I wonder what you are arguing for or against. First of all, go and familiarize yourself with the topic under discussion (God’s existence or nonexistence), familiarize yourself with the intelligent and deeply thought-out arguments for or against the topic and then make up your mind as to which one is the more plausible. I don’t have the time nor inclination to help you with that search for I’ll be encouraging some sort of intellectual laziness.

Now, I realize that what I have said so far may not sit well with you precisely because you probably already have some idea of what God is or is held up by theists to be. If you were truly and completely nescient of the idea then this last statement “All the so-called philosophical arguments you have given so far are also equally valid for Sussicorn.  So should we believe in Sussicorn?” sticks out like a very sore thumb.

That statement shows me the mindset of some atheist who has chosen to trivialize the discussion. You’ll find out rapidly enough that I don’t bother myself replying any and every comment. So you might as well claim that the philosophical argument for God applies to “invisible pink unicorns”, “Celestial teapots” or “the flying spaghetti monster”. That is your own cup of tea. That is the sort of rabid militant New atheism that is anchored on silly ridicule and a dearth of critical reasoning which reminds one forcefully of rabid militant theism they supposedly reject. Whatever happened to the deep thinking atheist philosophers of old like Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russel etc? The fallacious sort of appeal to mockery or ridicule which passes for the New Atheist arguments are simply underwhelming.

Tudór:

Dude your reply is too long. You do not need to spam to prove your god. Any attempt to quote and reply you would be deleted by the spam bot. So let me go straight to the point.

First of all let me say that the cosmological and design argument try to prove that there might be an intelligent force behind the universe whether that intelligent force is what you refer as god or not is a whole new argument for all we know the universe might be a simulation in some alien supercomputer and these same cosmological and intelligent design argument can be used to argue this too.  Also this same arguments can be used to "prove" the existence of the millions of gods on this planet so tell me, what rational and logical basis have you got to prove that this so called intelligent force is yahweh( assuming you're a christian).

I remind you i define atheism as disbelief in god as potrayed by revealed religion"- so when someone comes mouthing off that he's got proof, i expect to see solid empirical proof that jehovah as revealed by the bible (writings of deluded men) does indeed exist .
Your belief in yahweh or jehovah is purely based on blind faith so you guys should spard us the expired mantra that christianity is rational.
Cheers.

I’ll make this brief also. Here are my observations:

1)You seem to be confusing the Cosmological Argument with the Design or Fine-tuning Argument. They are different lines of arguments. Like I suggested earlier, drop this hasty and lazy intellectual approach to this discussion, go and familiarize yourself with what these arguments really are.

2)If you had done so, you would not have come out to speculate that the explanation for the origin of the universe is some alien supercomputer. The concept “alien” (by which we mean possible physical beings in the planets of this or distant galaxies) and “supercomputer” (by which we mean a powerful physical/material, spatially defined, and temporal computational device) are subsets of the universe. They are contingent entities and not necessary entities.

3)How you choose to define atheism is your own problem and no sensible person is going to engage someone who insists on being shown an empirically provable God. If such an empirically provable thing exists, it will not qualify as God. To make this simpler for you to understand, the God concept is independent of the name God—once the concept satisfies the attributes of God, it shouldn’t matter if you choose to call it “The Big Primordial Shell”, “7X3O1R”, “Cosmic Singularity” or any other qualifiers that appeal to you.

4)You have not shown us, by way of logical proof or arguments, why we should agree with you that “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” does not exist. I may or may not agree with you when you present your case but don’t expect anyone to be convinced by your arbitrary decree to that effect. Show us how you have managed to prove, without reasonable doubt, that Jehovah does not exist.

Tudór:

Ofcourse atheists have superior arguments and are much more capable of rational thinking than you religionists who trotter around hugging the writings and ideas of deluded primitive men who call themselves men of god.

First of all, you have to disabuse yourself of the idea that thinking rationally is possible only by being wedded to a worldview anchored on a strict naturalistic framework. Secondly, that entire statement you just made is False. The philosophical arguments on the existence of God do not rely on scriptures or what you have chosen to deride as "the writings and ideas of deluded primitive men who call themselves men of god". Two of such arguments are the Cosmological Argument and the Argument from Design. If you are not conversant with these arguments, then go read up on them. If you are familiar with them and you have a sound logical refutation, then let us hear it. If you come back with other empty assertions of self-worth then I am not obliged to respond to you. Let your much-vaunted superior arguments speak for you. We are all here to learn from each other, right?

Tudór:
By nature i assume is your usual "deductive" or" inductive" proof.

I say it again, this is just a lazy excuse for your lack of concrete evidence for your god.
Proof whether "deductive" or "inductive" should be definitive and leave no room for doubt for it to be called proof.

This is just another empty assertion. On what basis or proof do you assert that "proof whether 'deductive' or 'inductive' should be definitive and leave no room for doubt for it to be called proof"? How do you know that this statement you just made is true? Does that assertion have any concrete materialistic/naturalistic explanation or evidence? The answer is NO.

At any rate, you are mistaken if you assume I am going to be locked into some unfruitful, unsophisticated back-and-forths on the topic. This issue calls for serious mentation--it is not an opportunity for jejune point scoring. For example, what do you mean when you ask for a "concrete" evidence of God? Are you asking to be shown something that has matter and could be called God? What sort of "concrete" evidence are you looking for? Let us hope you are not asking to be shown a logical contradiction i.e a material/empirical evidence for a God concept which by definition is spaceless or boundless; infinitely pre-existent or eternal in the past and future; immaterial or incorporeal; and ultimately omnipotent. It will be like asking for me to show you a square circle or a married bachelor. So, once again, tackle the philosophical arguments for the existence of God and tender your logical/rational refutations if you have any. This is not time for cheap rhetoric. You can do the honorable thing however and declare beforehand that you are not prepared to contemplate non-naturalistic alternatives and spare us a lot of time.

Tudór:
And rightly so!
If you indeed claim something is supernatural it wouldn't be totally out of place for the naturalist to ask for evidence now, would it?

Yeah, but what sort of evidence is a naturalist going to accept or believe anyway? If you start ab initio [/i]and decree by fiat that you'll only be persuaded or convinced by naturalistic explanations then there is no need for us to waste our time here. It is astounding that anyone has to spell out to you that there cannot be any naturalistic explanations for non-naturalistic phenomena. Besides, any statement to the effect that [i]"naturalistic/empirical explanations are all that we have to accept when examining truth claims" collapses if one were to ask how such a statement/truth claim can be shown to be true. Such a statement cannot be empirically proven or explained by naturalistic means. This is going to sound like mumbo jumbo until you actually start thinking a little deeper on the subject. This discussion is not a popularity contest where trite and specious replies are tendered for the purpose of some cyber one-upmanship. I want to believe there are serious and honest theists, agnostics and atheists alike who really want to exchange ideas in a meaningful way.

Tudór:
Why should i bother myself to show logical basis for an unproven hypothesis not presented by me?
The solid fact that the proponents of this myth can't definatively prove their theory is "logic basis" enough for me.

Nice try. I am not going to accept that you have no burden of proof if you want to describe yourself as an atheist. Theists who believe in the existence of a God AND Atheists who believe in the non-existence of a God have to present their positive evidence for that stance. This means that it is logically fallacious to claim without good evidence for your own position, that the inability of the opposition to adequately explain their own truth claims counts as a logically necessary proof of your own claim. It means that both sides could be wrong.

For example: Side A claims that a certain watch found at an excavation site was designed by some intelligence and Side B claims that the watch was not designed but can be explained as the product of blind chance. Side A and B have a burden on them to present positive arguments for their case. Side B cannot just sit back and declare victory because Side A may not be able to explain how watches are designed, nor indeed who the designer of that watch is.

If you want to be taken seriously, start addressing those philosophical arguments for the existence of God. What you have to do is tear down those arguments and erect positive atheistic or naturalistic alternatives of your own. This calls for you to engage your brain. No one here is duty-bound to furnish you with any proof or evidence that you can cavalierly denounce to your heart's content. Funny that you seem to think that anyone is trying to secure your approval for what constitutes proof. If you don't see that in any discussion for the existence or non-existence of God that Atheists and Theists have to present their own case, then there is no need for any sort of discussion. Theists can happily believe in God; atheists can happily disbelieve in God--and no side is committed to showing the other why their stance is the more plausible or rational.

Cheers!

Tudór:

This is all mumbo jumbo christian apologists hide behind to excuse their inability to definatively prove their god.
It's so pathetic that you now have to resort to weak conjectures to prove a personality that is supposed to exist.
If god himself were to come down and address us publicly like he supposedly did the isrealites in the desert, is that not definite proof?

Like i said, believe by faith if you wanna but don't come blattering senseless and baseless logic all in the name of "proof".

Sometimes people who call themselves atheists like to pretend that they are backed by superior arguments or reason when many times it is just emotionalism, or some really shallow and infantile reasoning at best. If you want to be taken seriously, start addressing some of the arguments. In the end, any sincere atheist may not believe in God, but honest enquiry will cause him/her to reflect deeply; it may even cause strong and staunch atheists to become agnostics of some sort. The problem I notice with this response is the failure to contemplate what the nature of proof can be.

For example, to anyone given to a naturalistic explanation, there is no guarantee that disbelief in God will disappear if they truly encounter supernatural occurrences. A naturalist has to start out with the basic framework or worldview that all explanations are naturalistic or at best, not fully yet understood. Be that as it may, you are free to believe whatever you want as I am not indebted to 'prove" anything to you. Why? It allows you to sit your happy behind back in some comfortable chair and squabble with any propositions. Perhaps it is better to ask you to start showing the logical basis for your very own disbelief or unbelief.

bawomolo:

it won't exactly be considered a proof if it is argued against.

aren't proofs supposed to be axiomatic?

we are here to stay by the way.

The short answer is that proofs are not always axiomatic, self-evident or aphoristic. Sometimes proofs are deductive or inductive. So to answer the question, the sort of mathematical proof that you may appeal to is not the sense in which the word is used or generally understood. A simple search on the very meaning of the word proof will reveal that it is not always to be understood in a mathematically precise and restrictive sense.

For example, your statement "it won't exactly be considered a proof if it is argued against" sounds reasonable on paper but that statement on its own cannot be PROVED (or disproved) in the sort of rigid way someone might be tempted to argue for. Think about this for a moment.

Tudór:

After crying blue murder and all your noise about having "proof" for the existence of god, you just come to shoot yourself in the foot.
Next time you copy and paste an article, try and read through and make sure you understand it quite well.If god really did exist why is it so hard for you christians to definitevly prove his/her existence beyond doubt?

If you're going to believe by faith by all means do, but don't come here mouthing of that you've got concrete "proof" that god is real.
Next please!

It is not possible to definitively prove that God exists; it is also not possible to definitively prove that God does not exist. The words DEFINITIVE PROOF suggests a certain kind of mathematical certitude which we cannot employ here.

The arguments that are presented for or against the existence of God are constructed to argue for what point of view best explains some of the grandest and toughest questions about existence, life and the universe at large. These sort of arguments are not to be construed as knockdown categorical and unimpeachable PROOFS rather they are designed to ask what worldview or perspective (theism vs atheism) is the more plausible or rational in light of the vast body of human knowledge (which by the way cannot be limited to naturalism).

Another point to note is that theists and atheists make faith claims all the time. The reason for this is quite simple. There are many rational and logical beliefs, statements and presuppositions we operate on which cannot be empirically observed, tested, analyzed or quantified. That is to say that one cannot operate in this world if one is to say that the only explanations he/she recognizes are naturalistic explanations. Another good reason why certain axioms or presuppositions are generally accepted is because they may have happened in the historical past and as such cannot be directly observed or even recreated. Lastly, since human beings themselves are limited to sense data, only the attribute of omniscience (an attribute which humans do not and possibly cannot possess) is sufficient ground upon which to discard faith claims.

So when theists say that their belief in God is anchored on reason but ultimately on faith, intelligent and discriminating theists and atheists are supposed to understand that to mean what it simply means--which is that on the God question, human knowledge and comprehension is so vanishingly small and insufficient to pronounce with any degree of certainty what God really is. A keen awareness that God exists might be present but the concept of God (especially his boundless and infinite attributes) are just simply not circumscribed by 'rudimentary' human mentation.

The philosophical arguments for the existence of God that Chukwudi posted are worthy of deeper reflection by anyone who wants to honestly approach the issue. No one is being forced to accept or reject God, but if any atheist wants to present him/herself as someone to be taken seriously, that person has to tear apart these philosophical arguments and then erect an alternative. This means that one has to, in stepwise fashion, refute the premises upon which the conclusion lies. Why? If the premises are sound then the conclusion, on pain of rationality, inescapably follows.

Now, I am not convinced that the ontological argument is a good argument to use with people who are self-confessed atheists. Secondly, these arguments are better marshaled if they are presented in very simple stepwise syllogisms. Cut the prose out and present the arguments as syllogisms and then let theists and atheists alike deal with the bare bones of the argument--for that is when you can begin to see where Logic/Rationality begins to separate from desperate illogic or at best, a plea to ignorance.

In the end, Nigeria is a nation filled with cowed, subservient, fearful people who cannot be relied upon to meaningfully protest any form of injustice whatsoever. The most that would be heard of this bloody tragedy is empty words of solidarity on an internet forum and a wholesale deferment of responsibility to nebulous dispensers of justice like the UN. The point (if no one has ever bothered to note) is that the powers that be in the Nigerian namespace have given their consent to this sort of dastardly barbarism and they are not willing to lift a fat avaricious finger in the defense of innocent men, women and children that must be gunned down, pillaged and desecrated by the primitive barbarians cloaked as soldiers.

If I must hark back to my earlier point however, I’ll note that Nigerians are so thoroughly divided and utterly subdued that they cannot muster any semblance of a popular and nation-wide revolt against the insouciant actions of the military. And why would anybody? Is the bloody and checkered history of that God-forsaken nation not replete with bountiful examples where the instruments and machinery of the state had been effectively used against the citizenry without any consequence? Who, having noted the ghastly regularity with which the Nigerian state visits gut-wrenching brutality on people who challenge the status quo would dare do the same? On what grounds would they do so I ask—Patriotism?

So it is probably safe to conclude that if the aggrieved people in the destitute and strife-stricken parts of the Niger Delta desire any change of circumstances, they must take matters into their hands. Counting on the humanity of their fellow Nigerians would be an injurious mistake. The much they can do, if they are not already mouthing obsequious and offensive statements exculpating the JTF, is shed abundant crocodile tears in cyberspace. And as is the manner of all things Nigerian, it will be back to business as usual.

Peter Obi has performed admirably in Anambra state and deserves to be re-elected. Frankly, I am convinced he is going to be re-elected unless some ‘iwuruwuru’ election day magic happens again.

Should a Christian partake in Sallah Celebrations?

This question does not need a very complex answer. The real answer to this question is : "It depends, "

It really depends on the person being asked. He or she alone knows what his particular circumstance is, and only he or she can tell if he or she is going to be able to partake. People can argue for or against the issue and trot out very sound points, but in the end, they'd be missing the mark which is that either positions are understandable.

If someone invites you to a Sallah celebration and you don't feel like going? Just tell him or her that you cannot make it. Simple!

If you are invited and you can make it, then go, rejoice with those that are rejoicing, and then acknowledge and receive every nourishment/food/meat given with thanks to YOUR own God.

The bible is quite ambivalent on this matter, and in the interest of avoiding poisonous rancor, let every Christian refrain from imposing his/her interpretation on others.

Adedibu is the Father of PDP??

Hahahahahaha.

Someone is trying too hard to be in Adedibu's good book.

Big B1:

We exchanged our views with civility and I gave you the last word--precisely because, I realize that you want to have the last word. Many people on this discussion board have a tendency of rehashing well-worn points in a silly game of virtual one-upmanship---you can make your point succinctly and leave it at that without the attendant rigmarole that I notice here.

What I do not appreciate however, is your silly handle-matching. There is absolutely no reason for you to call me Tayo-D. Leave that game for infants.

Hey Big B1:

Its a free world Sir, and you are free to hold whatever opinion you have of the man. I was reacting purely to this thread and the circus it has become.

You know what? Go and listen to this and re-assess your reactions so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI1RjWfuFkY


This is ridiculous. A guy speaks up candidly on race relations and some people start crying like pathetic babies just because they have constructed this monstrous image of the man in their minds.

Big B1:

Don't paint scenarios for me here buddy. Have you listened to the full transcript of the statements in question? Its easy to isolate any statement and start a riot about it. Do your homework first because, you do not want to be considered overemotional here.

Hey settle this the old fashioned way, shoot him!



Okay, I keed, I keed

Call anyone what he/she wishes to be called. You dramatically increase the chances that you or your points will be better received.
In a private setting (ie you are not writing or formally addressing them), you can call them whatever you want. It is that simple.

Talk about misplaced priorities.

If Bill-O is a racist in the closet, one day he will expose himself for all the world to see--in a manner which would leave no doubt to an overwhelming number of people. That offense would be of such gravity to bring about his firing from Fox News. Having said this, I think Bill-O's inveterate haters should stop lapping up every ridiculous garbage thrown out there by TRANSPARENTLY BIASED outfits like Mediamatters etc. They undermine real charges of racist behavior by their systematic witch-hunting.


Folks, this discussion doesn't deserve this level of vitriol. Just go and listen to or read a full transcript of the incident in question and decide for yourself. When you do, you will see that this is nothing more than a storm in a teacup. Frankly, nothing can be more exasperating as the readiness of some black people to begin some crying and moaning over every piffling charge of white racism.

Naijaking:

I called for the same maturity, for deep introspection so as to learn and correct the mistakes of the past. Watching this thread however, it would appear that the main discussants aren't interested in any form of pragmatism. If folks would rather bicker and fight, then hey, maybe they should go ahead.

ono:

I did not read through your post the last time thoroughly. I've just done that now, and I realise I'm dealing with another igbo man, who's feeling very bitter about that war. It's a normal thing to feel bitter about it. I indeed made some snide remarks about the war and igbo people. I made those statements because your brothers provoked me to do so. They kept on making a fool of themselves, casting aspersions on my person, people and tribes and calling them terrible names. I later apologised to the generality of Igbos on this forum for my unguarded utterances. What else would you have me do? This scenario of ours on this issue is much similar to what transpired in the Nigeria of 1966, between the parties involved before the war.

Will be back to address those bullet points.

Are you still going to address those bullet points, or should I give you more time to fight your perceived enemies? And if you could be so kind, could you expatiate on the highlighted part of your post?

I don't think that there will ever be consensus on what caused the war; it is in everyone's interest to highlight what they feel led to the unfortunate war but there are fundamentals that cannot even be debated or argued.

1) The actions of a few Igbo soldiers (plus one Yoruba man) in 1966 against the supposedly corrupt ruling establishment of the day cannot with due diligence be tagged an "Igbo orchestrated coup". The Igbo people were not consulted for this action; the perpetrators also did not claim to be acting in Igbo interest. They did what they felt would benefit Nigeria as a whole.

2) Before this action, the Igbo people did not have any particular need for a revolution because unlike today, the Igbo people were richly represented in every sphere and strata of government and the working class.

3) It is unconscionable and downright bizarre to commence a large scale extermination of fellow Nigerians (Igbos or people of south-southern origin) because of the actions of a few soldiers. That action served to illustrate that Nigeria was never one or united even if it was politically correct to claim so.

Folks can argue from now till tomorrow on what should have happened or not have, but really, its akin to crying over spilled milk. At this juncture, it behooves this present generation to draw some lessons from the mistakes of the past and then vow never to repeat those mistakes again. This is why it is remarkably sad that people who ought to be railing against the brigands in power (who have always executed their anti-people policies without facing negative consequences) are now mired in endless tribal baiting and infighting.

Ordinary Nigerians of every creed and tongue are suffering under the yoke of decades of inept leadership. Apparently, the dream of a united prosperous Nigeria which propelled the people that fought on Nigeria's side to crush the Biafran secession has never materialized. It is the height of folly for ANYONE (especially someone of Niger-Delta origin for instance) to waltz into a thread of this nature to deride and caricature the self-determination efforts of those who fought on Biafra's side. The more sensible approach, even if one has strong reasons for objecting to "Ojukwu's personal war", I think would have been to carefully study the facts, reach out to other Nigerians (Igbos included by the way), and build a broad grassroots movement to tackle visionless leadership in Nigeria. It would appear however that many Nigerians (especially Igbo people) have given up hope that Nigeria will transcend her current plethora of problems hence the now predictable penchant for blaming either non-Igbos for the misfortunes of yesteryears.

It is time to work together for progress, or as much as I hate to say it, find a way to separate peacefully.

Oya, make una continue with una yarns.