The cosmos purpose is all-encompassing....I am very happy that you clearly made a point of life being 'as we know it'...there is life out there....but is there a replicate place for humans to thrive? maybe ....was there a place for dinasoaurs to thrive? yes ...is there now? no

Lol, I see you have chosen to harp on a phrase in my comment as an escape route, don't worry, I won't push it further.

mkmyers45:

You're making an assumption then? Chinua Achebe is worthy of a national award but he has severally refused this...so what if this proven God doesn't want worship? maybe thats why he has remained unseen

Good, it seems you have now understood my question...If you had read my original question properly, you would have noticed that I made no assumptions on what God would want or not want or whether you will choose to worship Him or not. All I asked is if God would be worthy of your worship if you found Him to be true.

So I ask again, If God was shown to you, would He deserve your worship? yes or no

Avicenna:

Where is he?

He is recharging

mkmyers45:

He is recharging

Una no go kill me wif laf ooo. My belle wan burst with laf o

Mr_Anony:

Lol, I see you have chosen to harp on a phrase in my comment as an escape route, don't worry, I won't push it further.


Good, it seems you have now understood my question...If you had read my original question properly, you would have noticed that I made no assumptions on what God would want or not want or whether you will choose to worship Him or not. All I asked is if God would be worthy of your worship if you found Him to be true.

So I ask again, If God was shown to you, would He deserve your worship? yes or no

Since this a virtual situation...if such evidence do come up then yes he will deserve my reverence and then if he insist on a set mechanism for this reverence i will examine and follow...

mkmyers45:

Since this a virtual situation...if such evidence do come up then yes he will deserve my reverence and then if he insist on a set mechanism for this reverence i will examine and follow...

Good enough

mkmyers45:
Even humans need servicing and all.....infact they need it more than machines so? My system was once on for months...a human cannot do that can he?

Funny how ignorant you sound...so because your system was on for months, that makes it superior to humans.

If I may ask you...how long have you stayed on this earth? Can you compare your the lenght of your stay on this planet to that of your computer system.

Stop falling my hand biko.

mkmyers45:
where is in the bible was this recorded?

I John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Also,

The fifteen Apocryphal books which the Roman Catholics have included in their Bibles, come from a collection of about eighteen or more books written during the Inter-testamental Period. This period of four hundred years began with God giving the last book of the Old Testament which was Malachi. The Inter-testamental period ended with the coming of Christ and the writing of the New Testament. During this four hundred years God sent no prophets to Israel and was silent giving no written revelation.

The word "apocrypha" means "of questionable authenticity." These are called non canonical books because when the canon of Scriptures (the sixty six books of the Old and New Testaments) was accepted by the early Christians they recognized that these books contained spurious material and therefore were not inspired of God. Other names for these books are "hidden" or "deuterocanonical" books. These books are also called "pseudepigraphal", meaning "false writings" to designate them as spurious and unauthentic books of the late centuries B. C. and early centuries A. D. These books contain religious folklore and have never been considered inspired of God by biblical Christians from the earliest times of churches.

Some have referred to these books as the missing books of the Bible and conclude they are new discovers which are part of God's revelation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The sixty six books that comprise the Old and Testament are God's revelation to man and when John completed the Book of Revelation, God's word to man was complete. God has not added to His revelation since. The content of these spurious books shows them to be inspired of man...not God. It is also noteworthy that the Roman Catholic church which is a false church with false doctrines and pagan teachings accepts these books as scripture. Further, some of the cults including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Mormons, also accept them as scripture. No biblical Christians or churches have ever accept them as such. The fact is there are no lost books of the Bible.

These books or writings from the Apocrypha that the Roman Catholic Church claims are inspired are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Letter of Jeremiah, additions to Esther, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna (Daniel 13), and Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14). Three other Apocryphal books in the Septuagint, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 & 2 Esdras, are not considered to be inspired or canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. These books were not accepted by the Roman Catholic church until 1546 in the Council of Trent. Therefore for over 1300 years, since the inception of the Roman Church in the fourth Century, even they did not considered them inspired.

If you ask me, I accept that those books exists, therefore proves that some years are actually missing in the bible.

mkmyers45:
Provide the scripture here....we are discussing and i requested it

According to the Bible evil became a reality in the very beginning with the first couple (Adam and Eve as you and I know). Sin produces evil. Gen 2:9 The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

God instructed Adam to eat of the tree of life and nearby it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that he was to avoid eating from or would receive death. Gen 3:5”For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

We find when Eve and Adam ate from the tree and God said they had become as one of us – “knowing good and evil. God would have eventually instructed them on evil but now they learned of it by experience, something God did not intend.

Later we see God comment on the spread of sin which resulted in wickedness in action and evil in thought. Gen 6:5 “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

God had to judge the earth because of this pandemic of evil from sin. After the flood immediately offers up a sacrifice which is pleasing to the Lord “And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done” (Gen. 8:21)
I've posted it before, and I would post it gain.

mkmyers45:
im waiting too

I went to refresh myself. Sorry for keeping you waiting.

CrazyMan:
Funny how ignorant you sound...so because your system was on for months, that makes it superior to humans.

If I may ask you...how long have you stayed on this earth? Can you compare your the lenght of your stay on this planet to that of your computer system.

Stop falling my hand biko.


I John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Also,

The fifteen Apocryphal books which the Roman Catholics have included in their Bibles, come from a collection of about eighteen or more books written during the Inter-testamental Period. This period of four hundred years began with God giving the last book of the Old Testament which was Malachi. The Inter-testamental period ended with the coming of Christ and the writing of the New Testament. During this four hundred years God sent no prophets to Israel and was silent giving no written revelation.

The word "apocrypha" means "of questionable authenticity." These are called non canonical books because when the canon of Scriptures (the sixty six books of the Old and New Testaments) was accepted by the early Christians they recognized that these books contained spurious material and therefore were not inspired of God. Other names for these books are "hidden" or "deuterocanonical" books. These books are also called "pseudepigraphal", meaning "false writings" to designate them as spurious and unauthentic books of the late centuries B. C. and early centuries A. D. These books contain religious folklore and have never been considered inspired of God by biblical Christians from the earliest times of churches.

Some have referred to these books as the missing books of the Bible and conclude they are new discovers which are part of God's revelation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The sixty six books that comprise the Old and Testament are God's revelation to man and when John completed the Book of Revelation, God's word to man was complete. God has not added to His revelation since. The content of these spurious books shows them to be inspired of man...not God. It is also noteworthy that the Roman Catholic church which is a false church with false doctrines and pagan teachings accepts these books as scripture. Further, some of the cults including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Mormons, also accept them as scripture. No biblical Christians or churches have ever accept them as such. The fact is there are no lost books of the Bible.

These books or writings from the Apocrypha that the Roman Catholic Church claims are inspired are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Letter of Jeremiah, additions to Esther, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna (Daniel 13), and Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14). Three other Apocryphal books in the Septuagint, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 & 2 Esdras, are not considered to be inspired or canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. These books were not accepted by the Roman Catholic church until 1546 in the Council of Trent. Therefore for over 1300 years, since the inception of the Roman Church in the fourth Century, even they did not considered them inspired.

If you ask me, I accept that those books exists, therefore proves that some years are actually missing in the bible.



According to the Bible evil became a reality in the very beginning with the first couple (Adam and Eve as you and I know). Sin produces evil. Gen 2:9 The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

God instructed Adam to eat of the tree of life and nearby it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that he was to avoid eating from or would receive death. Gen 3:5”For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

We find when Eve and Adam ate from the tree and God said they had become as one of us – “knowing good and evil. God would have eventually instructed them on evil but now they learned of it by experience, something God did not intend.

Later we see God comment on the spread of sin which resulted in wickedness in action and evil in thought. Gen 6:5 “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

God had to judge the earth because of this pandemic of evil from sin. After the flood immediately offers up a sacrifice which is pleasing to the Lord “And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done” (Gen. 8:21)
I've posted it before, and I would post it gain.


I went to refresh myself. Sorry for keeping you waiting.

Did I hear "religious folklore?"

What is religious folklore?

No crazyman, you did not reply my second post, which was related to the first. If you weren't going to you should not have asked. At least you brought mr anony out to play

Funny how ignorant you sound...so because your system was on for months, that makes it superior to humans.

If I may ask you...how long have you stayed on this earth? Can you compare your the length of your stay on this planet to that of your computer system.

Stop falling my hand biko.

Computers are smarter,more efficient,faster and all

Simple

I John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Also,

The fifteen Apocryphal books which the Roman Catholics have included in their Bibles, come from a collection of about eighteen or more books written during the Inter-testamental Period. This period of four hundred years began with God giving the last book of the Old Testament which was Malachi. The Inter-testamental period ended with the coming of Christ and the writing of the New Testament. During this four hundred years God sent no prophets to Israel and was silent giving no written revelation.

The word "apocrypha" means "of questionable authenticity." These are called non canonical books because when the canon of Scriptures (the sixty six books of the Old and New Testaments) was accepted by the early Christians they recognized that these books contained spurious material and therefore were not inspired of God. Other names for these books are "hidden" or "deuterocanonical" books. These books are also called "pseudepigraphal", meaning "false writings" to designate them as spurious and unauthentic books of the late centuries B. C. and early centuries A. D. These books contain religious folklore and have never been considered inspired of God by biblical Christians from the earliest times of churches.

Some have referred to these books as the missing books of the Bible and conclude they are new discovers which are part of God's revelation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The sixty six books that comprise the Old and Testament are God's revelation to man and when John completed the Book of Revelation, God's word to man was complete. God has not added to His revelation since. The content of these spurious books shows them to be inspired of man...not God. It is also noteworthy that the Roman Catholic church which is a false church with false doctrines and pagan teachings accepts these books as scripture. Further, some of the cults including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Mormons, also accept them as scripture. No biblical Christians or churches have ever accept them as such. The fact is there are no lost books of the Bible.

These books or writings from the Apocrypha that the Roman Catholic Church claims are inspired are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Letter of Jeremiah, additions to Esther, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna (Daniel 13), and Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14). Three other Apocryphal books in the Septuagint, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 & 2 Esdras, are not considered to be inspired or canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. These books were not accepted by the Roman Catholic church until 1546 in the Council of Trent. Therefore for over 1300 years, since the inception of the Roman Church in the fourth Century, even they did not considered them inspired.

If you ask me, I accept that those books exists, therefore proves that some years are actually missing in the bible.

Oga i know, the genealogy of Jesus says...Adam-Seth-...to Noah-Abraham....David...Up to Jesus

and this genealogy is properly explained and ages given so what missing years are you talking about? Is Adam not equal to Jesus?

According to the Bible evil became a reality in the very beginning with the first couple (Adam and Eve as you and I know). Sin produces evil. Gen 2:9 The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

God instructed Adam to eat of the tree of life and nearby it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that he was to avoid eating from or would receive death. Gen 3:5”For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

We find when Eve and Adam ate from the tree and God said they had become as one of us – “knowing good and evil. God would have eventually instructed them on evil but now they learned of it by experience, something God did not intend.

Later we see God comment on the spread of sin which resulted in wickedness in action and evil in thought. Gen 6:5 “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

God had to judge the earth because of this pandemic of evil from sin. After the flood immediately offers up a sacrifice which is pleasing to the Lord “And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done” (Gen. 8:21)
I've posted it before, and I would post it gain.


I went to refresh myself. Sorry for keeping you waiting.

So clearly God created evil right?

wiegraf: No crazyman, you did not reply my second post, which was related to the first. If you weren't going to you should not have asked. At least you brought mr anony out to play

imagine!

He's going biblical. Voiding our agreement.
I v replied Mr Anony in anticipation sef.

plaetton:
Did I hear "religious folklore?"

What is religious folklore?

Religious folklore from my definition, consists of the “sayings” that sound like they come right from God’s Word but actually come from man. They sound great, but when you try to live by them you get into trouble. Here are some of the most common examples of “financial” religious folklore.

1. “God helps those who help themselves.” Have you heard this one? Is this what God says? No! God says, “I delight in helping those who can never help themselves” Ecclesiastes 9:10).

2. “Money is the root of all evil.” Is this what the Word says? No again. This has to be the most misquoted verse about money in the Bible; probably found in man’s book of “First Opinions.” Remember, Paul didn’t say money was the root of all evil, he said, the love of it was what caused all the problems. It’s not the money you have to worry about; it’s your attitude about money that gets you into trouble (see 1 Tim 6:10).

3.“Poverty is spiritual.” Is this what the Word says? No again. This has to be the most misquoted verse about money in the Bible; probably found in man’s book of “First Opinions.” Remember, Paul didn’t say money was the root of all evil, he said, the love of it was what caused all the problems. It’s not the money you have to worry about; it’s your attitude about money that gets you into trouble (see 1 Tim 6:10).

4. “Riches are the evidence of God’s blessing.” Riches are not the evidence of God’s blessing. They may be one evidence, but they are not the evidence. Here’s the fallacy of this example of religious folklore: If you try to apply this criteria to Jesus Christ, He simply does not measure up. Jesus was not “rich” in that he never accumulated material wealth. In fact, the scripture says other men and women helped supply His way. However, don’t ever think that money wasn’t important to Jesus. Think about it. Jesus and His disciples had to have money to buy the essentials of life and to give to the poor as they traveled around the countryside. Money was important enough that Jesus had a treasurer...remember Judas (Ecclesiastes 5:10)?

You must note that I used that term because most people didn't believe in the The Apocryphal, Or Deuterocanonical Books. They see it as a relegious folklore

wiegraf: No crazyman, you did not reply my second post, which was related to the first. If you weren't going to you should not have asked.

I'm sorry, the questions are just too much...I would take some time to reply you...don't be offended.

Guys, let me just run this argument by y'all. You've probably heard it a lot of times before.

Everything that comes into being has a cause
The universe came into being
Therefore the universe has a cause.

Do y'all agree with this argument?

(mind you, I am talking about just the argument and what it plainly says not whatever extra meanings you may want to read from it)

Crazyman deserves some credit for his effort if not his delivery. He was brave enough to step up to his self appointed challenge as mouthpiece of christians but failed miserably to deliver.
Mr Anony whom i disagree with on many issuesof faith gave a far more credible defence of God on a thread that wasn't his.
I am handicapped by my poor writing skill to mount a proper dedence of some of the questions our atheist "friends" throw at us.
Some of these questions like: Why did God not make his creature to be always good?surely one can excercise freewill in an infinte number good ways they would reply in answer to freewill defence. A friend of mine once asserted that God if he exist was evil to some extent because, he encompasses everything, the universal set if you will and every other thing a subset. That means that no thaught, action, material or indeed anything real or abstract can exist if it is not already part of god.
Questions like this are complex, as christians we should not shy away from them. finding answers to them deepens our understanding and helps us appreciate the God we serve all the more.

Mr_Anony: Guys, let me just run this argument by y'all. You've probably heard it a lot of times before.

Everything that comes into being has a cause
The universe came into being
Therefore the universe has a cause.

Do y'all agree with this argument?

(mind you, I am talking about just the argument and what it plainly says not whatever extra meanings you may want to read from it)

Yes! I agree. As far as I'm concerned.

Now don't go coloring it with apologetics.

@Crazyman. I understand.

Take your time.

Avicenna:

Yes! I agree. As far as I'm concerned.

Now don't go coloring it with apologetics.

The question now following would be: What does it mean to be the cause of the universe?
I suggest to you that such a cause must necessarily be outside nature and spacetime

Do you agree? If not, please provide your contentions

dorox: Crazyman deserves some credit for his effort if not his delivery. He was brave enough to step up to his self appointed challenge as mouthpiece of christians but failed miserably to deliver.
Mr Anony whom i disagree with on many issuesof faith gave a far more credible defence of God on a thread that wasn't his.
I am handicapped by my poor writing skill to mount a proper dedence of some of the questions our atheist "friends" throw at us.
Some of these questions like: Why did God not make his creature to be always good?surely one can excercise freewill in an infinte number good ways they would reply in answer to freewill defence. A friend of mine once asserted that God if he exist was evil to some extent because, he encompasses everything, the universal set if you will and every other thing a subset. That means that no thaught, action, material or indeed anything real or abstract can exist if it is not already part of god.
Questions like this are complex, as christians we should not shy away from them. finding answers to them deepens our understanding and helps us appreciate the God we serve all the more.

Everyone believes himself a priori to be perfectly free, even in his individual actions, and thinks that at every moment he can commence another manner of life. ... But a posteriori, through experience, he finds to his astonishment that he is not free, but subjected to necessity, that in spite of all his resolutions and reflections he does not change his conduct, and that from the beginning of his life to the end of it, he must carry out the very character which he himself condemns...

“Experience teaches us no less clearly than reason, that men believe themselves to be free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined.”

and i insist that "You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing."

Mr_Anony:
The question now following would be: What does it mean to be the cause of the universe?
I suggest to you that such a cause must necessarily be outside nature and spacetime

Do you agree? If not, please provide your contentions

Why? what if this universe is the expansion of a multi-verse? Definitely you cannot discount nature and space-time

Mr_Anony:
The question now following would be: What does it mean to be the cause of the universe?
I suggest to you that such a cause must necessarily be outside nature and spacetime

Do you agree? If not, please provide your contentions

Not necessarily. I agree with most of what you said tho.
At this stage, its all speculation in cosmology. You cannot discount spacetime and nature.

I won't make ANY predictions. I won't also descend into terminologies. I'm not a physicist.

dorox: Crazyman deserves some credit for his effort if not his delivery. He was brave enough to step up to his self appointed challenge as mouthpiece of christians but failed miserably to deliver.
Mr Anony whom i disagree with on many issuesof faith gave a far more credible defence of God on a thread that wasn't his.
I am handicapped by my poor writing skill to mount a proper dedence of some of the questions our atheist "friends" throw at us.
Some of these questions like: Why did God not make his creature to be always good?surely one can excercise freewill in an infinte number good ways they would reply in answer to freewill defence. A friend of mine once asserted that God if he exist was evil to some extent because, he encompasses everything, the universal set if you will and every other thing a subset. That means that no thaught, action, material or indeed anything real or abstract can exist if it is not already part of god.
Questions like this are complex, as christians we should not shy away from them. finding answers to them deepens our understanding and helps us appreciate the God we serve all the more.

Actually, the Christians and theists have not shied away from these kind of issues; in relevant debates, the argument that the Christians and theists have put to the atheists is that in fact that which is known as the Problem of Evil actually proves the existence of God.

See e.g. threads including

https://www.nairaland.com/810960/god-evil

https://www.nairaland.com/934575/god-dead

https://www.nairaland.com/990487/morality-possible-without-authoritative-source

And of course, beyond Nairaland, these issues have been addressed by far far more devoted people (code for 'cleverer people') ----- whether satisfactorily or not.

@Crazyman it's ok, still

@Dorox I like the post, but all most of us with other beliefs ask for is respect. You most certainly don't have the answers, for the most part no one does, though the scientific method has been undeniably more successful than other philosophies as far as attaining knowledge is concerned. So when some religious person comes around claiming superiority while sometimes doing very questionable things because of his religious faith, well, imagine how that looks.

@anony, I actually disagree as to the cause issue because of uncertainty, but I'm sketchy on the details. Where do particles borrow energy from to produce their magical feats? Anyone know?

wiegraf:

@anony, I actually disagree as to the cause issue because of uncertainty, but I'm sketchy on the details. Where do particles borrow energy from to produce their magical feats? Anyone know?

Referring to wave/particle paradox or the uncertainty principle?

mkmyers45:

Why? what if this universe is the expansion of a multi-verse? Definitely you cannot discount nature and space-time

If the universe is part of a multiverse, then you have only succeeded in pushing the question back one step. You will still encounter an origin where you have to acknowledge a cause.

Mr_Anony:
If the universe is part of a multiverse, then you have only succeeded in pushing the question back one step. You will still encounter an origin where you have to acknowledge a cause.

When making the argument of cause...you have to define certain subsets no?

Avicenna:

Not necessarily. I agree with most of what you said tho.
At this stage, its all speculation in cosmology. You cannot discount spacetime and nature.

I won't make ANY predictions. I won't also descend into terminologies. I'm not a physicist.

Classic sidestepping.
All I am saying is that if nature and spacetime has a cause, then that cause cannot be subject to nature and spacetime. This is simple logic

mkmyers45:

When making the argument of cause...you have to define certain subsets no?

I am only arguing that logically, a first uncaused cause must exist.

mkmyers45:

Referring to wave/particle paradox or the uncertainty principle?

Yeah. That stuff seems to be rather random, putting a dent on determinism and cause and effect by extension. Scary part is experiments verify their predictions.

I would have thought proponents of freewill and ID would be fans actually. The arguments would still be tenuous, but better than nothing. It would still qualify as 'god of the gaps' to me though, as the model is not complete. Also, as of now, it can be interpreted in many ways and still be valid. But there might be hope for determinism yet.

Edit: my bad, didn't read that well. Both are jazz, but I refer to uncertainty in particular

Mr_Anony:
Classic sidestepping.
All I am saying is that if nature and spacetime has a cause, then that cause cannot be subject to nature and spacetime. This is simple logic

That's the current speculation. I said I agree with most of what you said.

But, we are not talking our planet here. Until we get conclusive proof this is what occurred, It will remain speculation. You cannot discount space time and nature.

I see you are going into apologetics. Uncaused cause. You cannot know this. You do not know what happened pre-beginning of the universe.

I expect you to jump to the next 'logical' position. This uncaused cause is God and it is the christian God. Ok. I hear.

Avicenna:
That's the current speculation. I said I agree with most of what you said.

But, we are not talking our planet here. Until we get conclusive proof this is what occurred, It will remain speculation. You cannot discount space time and nature.

I see you are going into apologetics. Uncaused cause. You cannot know this. You do not know what happened pre-beginning of the universe.

I expect you to jump to the next 'logical' position. This uncaused cause is God and it is the christian God. Ok. I hear.

Stick to the argument I am actually presenting and not where you think I am heading to.
I am not speculating at all, I am only presenting simple logic to you. If spacetime has an origin and hence a cause, it logically follows that this cause must transcend spacetime no matter what it turns out to be.

Mr_Anony:
Stick to the argument I am actually presenting and not where you think I am heading to.
I am not speculating at all, I am only presenting simple logic to you. If spacetime has an origin and hence a cause, it logically follows that this cause must transcend spacetime no matter what it turns out to be.

OK.

Avicenna:

OK.

Continuing.......if it is true that this cause of the universe transcends the natural, we can deduce that there must be a realm beyond the natural from which it is possible to bring natural events to be. This tells us that a supernatural realm must exist. Do you agree? If not, give your contentions.

(Note: It doesn't prove God, or the exact nature of the supernatural all it tells us for now is that a supernatural realm exists)

@mr anony, what does supernatural mean in this context?

@avi,