vaxx:
I think you need to understand it. you are actually overlapping.

In science, an idea starts out as a hypothesis as to why or how something is hpening. Those hypotheses undergo a lot of experimental trials in various ways and data is collected. Over time, as more and more data is collected, a hypothesis can be a scientific theory. The more a hypothesis is supported by many different experiments

johnydon22:
I won't banter over the meaning of logic with you here



nobody have ever argued a theory and fact remains the same i thought i have coherently explained this...

vaxx:
For a quick correction . gravity is a law not theory

vaxx:
no sir you failed to acknowledged the distinct difference between the two

a hypothesis: Is a scientific thesis/speculation wanting in observations and predictions
a theory: is a scientific thesis that explains an already observed facts but can be falsified by more observations and predictions of it's own makings

vaxx:
first of all. God is not something. it is not an object or any tangible property. therefore he can not be quantify ,compared or describe. the moment you find an equation to God. then the object stop being God. the traditional faith(olodumare) God for clarification is beyond human understanding base on the IFA teaching

therefore for you saying god is more complex in design will be flawed or less complex because it disagree with IFA touchstone. the touchstone of ifa is the main center of faith(unknown identity )but his reality is overwhelming. I can enlighten you more on it. the design topic is a good example

Yoruba words olo odu ma ire means Owner of the containers of creation and great blessings. anything or definition outside of this is not God.

how can a functional system exist without passing through the hands of an expert?

johnydon22:
Sighs





welcome back to reality now, and after the dance around you come back to the very point i was hammering over. Theories are substantiated by observed facts and experimentations.

A good theory is one that passes the tests of it's predictions, if it fails or an observation goes contrary to it's explanations, it is either modified or discarded and that is how scientific models improve in quality and truth approximation.

So evolution and big bang are theories, still supported by observations and experiments, yet to be disproved by any

vaxx:
stop trying to steer the wheel of the ship in your favor. it is devilish.

in science. fact are what one can readily observe.

It can pertain to any object and real phenomenon. either it be the falling of the an orange after being thrown upwards or other simple observable occurrences. In this regard, the fact is that the orange will fall. and likewise, if this test is being done repeatedly under a controlled environment that cancels all unnecessary variables the phenomenon would have become a very obvious and undeniable fact. It is considered a fact because it will remain as true even after several centuries unless there is a more rigid and precise way of measuring a certain phenomenon. On the contrary, theories in science are likened to the explanations to what has been observed. hope give details.

johnydon22:


Jesus christ! gravitation is explained by Einsteins theory of relativity or newton's theory of gravitation before then. please i am not here to do this, you need to improve the quality of your arguments.

vaxx:
wait before you insult me. I will rather tell you that. before Albert developed law of relativity. newton gravity of law exist.

Jesus christ! gravitation is explained by Einsteins theory of relativity or newton's theory of gravitation before then. please i am not here to do this, you need to improve the quality of your arguments.

johnydon22:


God is not something then God is nothing. That statement already killed your whole faith, if God is not something that makes God nothing.



goes ahead and makes a claim without showing how, it disagrees with Ifa to ascribe complexity to God, how, why?

doesn't say.

This is exactly the loop a christian enters when they use the bible.




And this owner of the containers of creations and great blessing is not something? then it is nothing.

But if this owner is a skilled designer as you are implying, then this skilled designer is something and if it something (spiritual/natural) something is something, it follows that it must equally be as complex or more therefore we shout at the design argument to hold for it.

i wish you see how your own words climb on each other contradicting the very bits they hope to support. God is not something but it is a skilled designer, haaaaaa jesus christ of nazareth, that is absurd my good sir

vaxx:
it seems you failed to reason out of what you have known.


I told you earlier the definition of God must match the touchstone of IFA. which state god identity is unknown.

OK let see may be you will get it now.
let use this scenario
brother nairaland was admitted to the hospital and he conceived and gave birth to a child. Can you tell me was the child a girl or a boy? I know that a male can not conceive and give birth to a child. The quality of a male is it cannot conceive and give birth to a child. it is an absurd question. Same way, the definition of God is uncreated. He does not have a beginning. So if you are still asking me the question who is the designer of the creator

johnydon22:


You lack simple basic comprehensions and that will make me ignore you really.

facts are readily observed, correct. but the observations of this raging causes and effects provides need for explanations, the models of these explanations are what we term theories for God sake.

this is becoming tiring, going over the same nonsense over and over again.

expanding universe - fact
theory - rewind the expansion back in time, it must have started at a point, big bang.

even a 2 year old should understand the simple terms i use here

johnydon22:




Mind the bolded

Do you just love repeating what i said in a different way?

Brother i think you need to improve a bit, doing this with you is dragging me way behind the lines i am at, not wanting to sound condescending but this is the truth.

johnydon22:
Unknown identity is not same thing as not be being something..




Your argument births this questions not me, you argue that complexity must connote design and i simply showed you that anything able to design this must be even more complex than this, so if complexity means design then this creator must equally be designed.

If this creator even though complex is not designed then you have shown something can be complex yet undesigned thus defeating your own argument.

And again you contradict yourself; Says God is unknown at the same time knows God is eternal and uncreated, if God is unknown you cannot know anything about God, you cannot know whether he is uncreated or not, whether he is eternal. but if you know these details about God then it cannot be said that God is unknown by definition.

chose your words careful fella

johnydon22:
The idea of God at the very first conception is more assumptive than empirical, that means that the postulation that there is a God is rather thought formulated rather than empirically backed.

So my disbelief in God is just an act of honesty in my part from my own perspective, i do not pretend to know there is no God i only try not to pretend that i know there is any.

vaxx:
since you believe god is an assumption rather than reality or evidence. your logic here will base on the reality of god existence if at all he exist or any proof to back it.

first lets start with the empirical


let analysis this design. spider and human being.
A tiny animal as a spider. Does anybody really believe that such an extraordinarily creature evolved from primordial soup? Just one of these little animal can produce up to seven different kinds of silk entrapment The spider can on demand not only manufacture its personal choice of the seven silks, but reabsorb, breakdown and remanufacture–self-recycling from the component elements. and also look at the complexity of Human being. don't you think this design must come from a creative expert or can it just be a sudden development?

obisco4u:


Look at all the madness, chaos and imperfection in the world. Were they createe by a "Perfect" and "Just" God?

purem:
Reason is that African traditional believers respect atheists and science. If they know you don't believe them they will live you alone.

Not the Christians that always goes for evangelism, winning souls.

Forcing you to believe there imaginary god and if an

atheist or scientist brings out EXPLANATION and FACTS they will bring debate and try to debunk it.

johnydon22:


Jesus christ! gravitation is explained by Einsteins theory of relativity or newton's theory of gravitation before then. please i am not here to do this, you need to improve the quality of your arguments.

vaxx:
you don't need to sound insulting before you make your point. it is a way of hiding from reality.


I am not denying it. explanation of how phenomenon occur is what is called theory. a just observation of phenomena is called law. while fact is a proven tested observation. a fact observation is the truth that can last or exist for centuries while theories are always subjected to revision.

vaxx:
please stop playing hide and seek. the newton gravity of law has been used by scientists before Albert develop the process behind it. this same process is not absolute because it can be subjected to revision tomorrow. we

vaxx:
with you first paragraph. can you enlighten it better. am lost.

first of all. I never say God is unknown. that is misinterpretation on your part.

I only tell you the identity remain unknown. God is known and one of his attribute is he can not be created. and likewise Mr nairaland scenario I gave above . he is man and one of the quality of man is . he can not gave birth.

johnydon22:


And the repetition continues

rhektor:


What was Einstein explanation of gravitation? As if Einstein started it

vaxx:
you are entitled to your opinion. let the nairalander on this page judge.

vaxx:
I am so much interested with the atheist website for weeks now. the websites(withheld) are full of brilliant views and logic analysis to debunk the believe of Christian and Muslim god. I try as much as possible to look for an atheist website that has anything to do with African traditional faith, but it seems non exist. .......... I will like to have a friendly discussion with any willing nairaland atheist. most of you guys here on nairaland are brilliant. the subject of the discussion can be on anything interesting. Christian and Muslim are all welcome. and likewise my African traditionalist can contribute. babalawo .you are invited.

johnydon22:


putting it in simple words: Having no knowledge about a particular thing doesn't make it to cease to be something..the knowledge of God is known.


You know God but not his identity. Keeps getting funnier.

vaxx:
human logic is ignorant you say. then what is the importance of critical thinking that begat rational taught. the only evidence of atheism.

big bang failed human logic and that is why some one like me failed to acknowledge it. logically it is disputed.


I ask you once again have you gotten the knowledge of African tradition beyond the myth?

vaxx:
according to you an entity must have a physical presence before it is real. supposing you dream last nigh . can physically identity of your last it? how can I believed you actually dream?

Davidgrey:

Human logic at base is ignorance, Everything you know today you learnt it. | The ingredients that makes rational thinking progressive is acquired knowledge

Objectively verified Truths owes human logic no explanation, Your feelings wouldn't change a factual truth

Speaking of Human logic....... Statements like that is what bred accepted ignorance, Your opinion is not the "Truth" only objectively verified truths are considered as "Universal truths" because they are proven

African myths are as dumb as the clowns that push them, let me educate you a bit on why mythical traditional crap should be discarded

Our illiterate fore-fathers told us that the "Sun rises in the East and Sets in the West"..... Not only is that statement literally wrong given that the earth orbits the sun, it also isn't "always" factually correct.