CoolUsername:
Watch in this thread: the rare moment where adults discuss how best to indoctrinate an impressionable young child.

they're discussing best ways to indoctrinate and imprison the mind of that smart kid.

that is infringing on his human rights!

joe4christ:

How can u explain an imaginary being. Do u reason at all?
And if u feel secured as a Christian, that only proves how insecure u really are.

A common argument
from atheists and skeptics is that
if all things need a cause, then
God must also need a cause. The
conclusion is that if God needed
a cause, then God is not God
(and if God is not God, then of
course there is no God). This is a
slightly more sophisticated form
of the basic question “Who
made God?” Everyone knows
that something does not come
from nothing. So, if God is a
“something,” then He must have
a cause, right?
The question is tricky because it
sneaks in the false assumption
that God came from somewhere
and then asks where that might
be. The answer is that the
question does not even make
sense. It is like asking, “What
does blue smell like?” Blue is not
in the category of things that
have a smell, so the question
itself is flawed. In the same way,
God is not in the category of
things that are created or
caused. God is uncaused and
uncreated—He simply exists

joe4christ:

How can u explain an imaginary being. Do u reason at all?
And if u feel secured as a Christian, that only proves how insecure u really are.

A common argument
from atheists and skeptics is that
if all things need a cause, then
God must also need a cause. The
conclusion is that if God needed
a cause, then God is not God
(and if God is not God, then of
course there is no God). This is a
slightly more sophisticated form
of the basic question “Who
made God?” Everyone knows
that something does not come
from nothing. So, if God is a
“something,” then He must have
a cause, right?
The question is tricky because it
sneaks in the false assumption
that God came from somewhere
and then asks where that might
be. The answer is that the
question does not even make
sense. It is like asking, “What
does blue smell like?” Blue is not
in the category of things that
have a smell, so the question
itself is flawed. In the same way,
God is not in the category of
things that are created or
caused. God is uncaused and
uncreated—He simply exists

The best thing to do is pray for d boy and let em find GOD himself....then e will decide weather to become a Christian or a Muslim
The child don't ave to become a Christian or Muslim becos is parent or relations are Christians or Muslims
Let em find is path....

religion will continue to scam those who believe untill they decide the face reality

247NewsUpdateNG:


• Using Criss Angel as a reference was wrong.
What explanation do you have for soul travels?

• FYI, that inner spirit that told our forefathers that killing of twins was right is what science termed conscience.
PS, read through my first comment and try understanding my use of the term 'Conscience' in this situation.

1. As I've said, people like Criss Angel and other illusionists make things so real. Howeve, there are verifiable cases of supposed 'reincarnation'. I explain this with the M-Theory, which has studies that infer that consciousness might actually not be a part of the body, and that space consists of 11 dimensions including 'fine' matter, instead of the thee x,y,z spatial dimensions we know. So that 'consciousness' could be what you're referring to as a soul.
This is just a hypothesis, however, and I have not seen any study calling our mind the 'conscience'.


2. You made this statement:

Holy Spirit telling the spirit in humans (which science call conscience) what to do or not?

And you're missing the point of my responses. If the holy spirit is what is telling us what to do orn not, what about our forefathers? Who was telling them? Or what about people in say, North Korea who will never even hear the name Jesus in their life? Who is telling them right from wrong? Does that mean you're damned to go to hell if you don't know of the Christian faith?

nino10:
A common argument
from atheists and skeptics is that
if all things need a cause, then
God must also need a cause. The
conclusion is that if God needed
a cause, then God is not God
(and if God is not God, then of
course there is no God). This is a
slightly more sophisticated form
of the basic question “Who
made God?” Everyone knows
that something does not come
from nothing. So, if God is a
“something,” then He must have
a cause, right?
The question is tricky because it
sneaks in the false assumption
that God came from somewhere
and then asks where that might
be. The answer is that the
question does not even make
sense. It is like asking, “What
does blue smell like?” Blue is not
in the category of things that
have a smell, so the question
itself is flawed. In the same way,
God is not in the category of
things that are created or
caused. God is uncaused and
uncreated—He simply exists A common argument
from atheists and skeptics is that
if all things need a cause, then
God must also need a cause. The
conclusion is that if God needed
a cause, then God is not God
(and if God is not God, then of
course there is no God). This is a
slightly more sophisticated form
of the basic question “Who
made God?” Everyone knows
that something does not come
from nothing. So, if God is a
“something,” then He must have
a cause, right?
The question is tricky because it
sneaks in the false assumption
that God came from somewhere
and then asks where that might
be. The answer is that the
question does not even make
sense. It is like asking, “What
does blue smell like?” Blue is not
in the category of things that
have a smell, so the question
itself is flawed. In the same way,
God is not in the category of
things that are created or
caused. God is uncaused and
uncreated—He simply exists

your logic is twisted .THERE IS NO ASSUMPTION just a question?

If everything has a cause then where did God come from. This of course is only a response to those theists who bring up the argument of "DID YOU CREATE YOURSELF"? It is a theist argument not the other way round That argument fails . The fact is God is not a rational belief . Just admit that it is something you chose to believe for no rational reason and we can finish already. But trying to use logic or reason fails EVERYTIME. There is no flaw to the question because your claim God is uncaused e,tc is just your private thought system it has no shared or common reality in the same way that a man on the left hand lane knows there is someone on the other lane. That i something that they have to negotiate to avoid accidents. Everyone can agree on that reality!!
It is no different from any other delusional system So if you keep God private no problem but if you bring it to the open space we will simply tear him down because it is a fantasy

sommyblaze:

Ah, i was just trying to introduce Christ to a Lad here.

you are advocating for force to be used. If God had will he would have created everyone with a single religion.

WinningSun:


you are advocating for force to be used. If God had will he would have created everyone with a single religion.

Or rather there is no God , no God will and God did not create any religion

Maybe he should leave us for a while

what is God? what makes us classify something as God, what are the characteristics? what are the attributes? is there a yard stick here?
If there is, does your perceived concept of what God is or should be fit these criteria?
Would God be masculine or feminine or both, will she/he be vengeful, jealous, kind, partial, emotional . Basically is what we call God the creator of the billions of galaxies and inestimable universes have human attributes?? why would he concern himself/herself with mere man? If there is a God...
I choose to be agnostic on this, man with all his religions and flawed, limited cognition is incapable of understanding what God is. We haven't evolved to that level.
Be rational and strip away the bias of religion from your mind, reexamine everything uve been taught.
And if ure faithful to urself, u will become as that inquisitive child u want to indoctrinate...
Even Christ says we should be like children... peace

WinningSun:


you are advocating for force to be used. If God had will he would have created everyone with a single religion.

hmmmm okay, you win

aribisala0:
Or rather there is no God , no God will and God did not create any religion

THERE'S GOD bro. we people of faith should just stop being forceful in wanting others to follow our faith.

WinningSun:

THERE'S GOD bro. we people of faith should just stop being forceful in wanting others to follow our faith.

There is God There is no GodThere is God There is no GodThere is God There is no GodThere is God There is no GodThere is God There is no GodThere is God There is no GodThere is God There is no GodThere is God There is no God.....................

Op kindly go through this interesting article below.

winner01:
The word “cosmos” is a Greek word that refers to everything that exists—the universe itself and everything in it. The cosmological argument for the existence of God tries to show that because anything exists there must be a God who brought it into existence. In other words, without God to create it, nothing would or could exist. It’s possible for God to exist without the universe, but it is not possible for the universe to exist without God. Thus, the cosmological argument tries to show that the universe is not a necessary being. This means the universe relies on something for its existence; it is contingent and therefore cannot account for its own existence. The goal of the argument is to show that the universe was caused by an agent that is not part of the universe, has no cause itself, and is personal.

There are several kinds of philosophical cosmological arguments, but we’ll focus on what is called the Kalam Argument because of its forcefulness and because understanding it often helps understand the others. The Kalam argument tries to show that the universe is not eternal—that it had to have a beginning and that the beginning was caused by person. Although this argument was first formulated by Christian philosophers, it was not until medieval Islamic thinkers devoted attention to the argument that it found its full force. Kalam is an Arabic word that can be translated “talk” or “speech” though it means something closer to “philosophy” or “theology.”

The argument hinges on three sets of alternatives. The universe either began or had no beginning, either it was caused or uncaused, and if it was caused the cause was either personal or impersonal.

At the core of the argument is an understanding of the difference between a potential infinite and an actual infinite. Potential infinites are sets of numbers that are continually increasing by adding another number to the series. For example, the seconds on this counter are potentially infinite. Once the count began, a set of numbers was generated and will increase until we move on to the next point. If we never move on, the seconds will potentially accrue forever. But no matter how long we let it sit here and add up, the number will never get so big that it turns
infinite. There will always be a finite number that we can add another increment to.

Actual infinites are sets of numbers to which no increment can be added since, by nature of their infiniteness, the set includes all numbers – there is nothing to add. If this is hard to imagine, there is good reason: actual infinites do not exist and cannot exist in the physical world. If actual infinites did exist in the physical world, we would see absurdities and effects we literally could not live with.

For example, here we see the earth rotating around the sun and the moon rotating around the earth. Which is happening more often: the moon going around the earth or the earth going around the sun? Clearly the moon makes more rotations around the earth. Now, if the universe
was infinitely old, which would made more rotations: the moon or the earth? The answer is they would be equal; they both would have made an infinite amount of rotations. Even thought the moon has made 12 times the number of rotations of the earth, they have made the same amount! It is an absurdity that cannot exist in reality.

Or, let’s say you had a CD collection that was infinitely large and each CD had an infinite number of songs on it. If you listened to one CD you would hear as much music as if you had listened to all of the CDs—an infinite amount—and yet those infinites are of different sizes—a nonsensical notion. Let’s also say that there were only two artists in your CD collection, Bach and the Beatles, and that every other CD was by the Beatles. This would mean that you had as many Beatles CDs as you would Beatles and Bach CDs combined; they would both be an infinite number. And would the number of Beatles CDs be odd or even? It must be one or the other, but to speak of infinity in such a way is irrational.


If this makes your brain hurt or is confusing at all then you are beginning to understand why actual infinites do not exist in the real world. These examples are not just interesting brainteasers or puzzles. The fact that if X=Y then X cannot also be twelve times greater than Y is extremely important. You would never want to cross a bridge, ride in a car, or live in a house designed by an engineer who didn’t recognize or didn’t care about the absurdities of actual infinites.

This demonstration of the non-existence of actual infinites is important to us in two real-world areas, time and causality. The best way to show that time is not infinite, that it had a beginning, is to observe that there is a “now.” If now exists then time cannot be infinite. To show this, picture the moment “now” as a destination, like a train station. Then picture time as train tracks that are actually infinitely long. If you were a passenger waiting on the train to arrive, how long would you have to wait? The answer is: forever. You can never reach the end of infinity; thus, infinitely long train tracks cannot ever be crossed. There is no end to arrive at, no station. If infinitely long train tracks could be crossed, they would be the equivalent of a one-ended stick, a nonsensical notion. In fact, this is the opposite limitation of potential infinites. Just as potential infinites are finite numbers that can never turn infinite, actual infinites could never reach the end of their infiniteness and turn finite. But there is an end, a “now”; the train did arrive at the station. This means the tracks of time cannot be infinitely long. There cannot be an infinite number of preceding moments prior to the present moment. The past is not an actual infinite. Thus, the universe had to have a beginning.

The universe, however, did not cause itself to spring into existence. If it had a beginning, then something began it. This is where causality comes into the picture. There is no such thing as an effect that was not caused. You are an effect of the biological process caused by your parents. These words you now hear were caused by my using my voice. The current state of the universe is an effect caused by various astronomical and physical conditions. But notice that each of the causes mentioned are also effects. For example, your parents are not only your cause, but they are the effects of their parents who were the effects of their parents, and so on. But, as the nonexistence of actual infinites shows, the chain of causes cannot regress forever.

The train station in this case is made of present causes; because we have causes now, there must be a beginning to the sequence. Thus, there must be a cause that is not an effect, an uncaused cause, or first cause.

Since the universe had a beginning and is an effect, it must have had a cause itself. At this point there are only two options: either the cause was personal or it was impersonal.
Let’s think about what this uncaused cause would look like. The first cause be non-contingent, meaning that its existence depends on nothing but itself. If it was contingent, then it would simply be one more effect in the chain of causes and effects. It must also be transcendent. This means the cause of the universe must exist outside of and apart from the universe. And because this being exists apart from the universe it must be immaterial. If it was material then it would be part of the universe. The first cause would have to have the power to create the universe. Without this ability nothing could be created. But these things are not enough to bring the universe into existence. There also needs to be a desire to create, a will to make the universe. Without this will to create, nothing would be created because the power to create could not be acted on. Now add all these things together.

What kind of thing
• relies on nothing for its existence
• exists apart from the universe
• is immaterial
• has the power to create something from nothing
• a will to do it or not do it

Does this sound like a personal or impersonal being? Personal, of course. The ability to will is an attribute that belongs only to persons. Thus, the Kalam argument brings us to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning that was caused by a personal, powerful, transcendent, selfexisting, immaterial being. In other words, God.

A question that frequently arises at this point has to do with God’s infinite characteristics. “If there is no such thing as an actual infinite, then how can God be infinitely good or loving?”
When we speak of God’s infinite characteristics, we are speaking in more of a metaphorical manner. We do not mean that God has an infinitely large quantity of goodness and love with which He funds His grace and mercy. We mean He is the ultimate embodiment of goodness and love.
These characteristics are without measure and speak to the quality of His character, not the quantity of His characteristics.

But philosophical arguments are not the only kinds of arguments that demonstrate the universe had a beginning. There are scientific arguments as well. The second law of thermodynamics, for instance, is often used as an illustration. However, the best and most easily understood example may be the big bang theory.

In the 1920s, Astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that our universe was bigger than previously thought. In fact, it was much bigger. Until he saw outside our galaxy, the prevailing thought was that our galaxy was the entire universe. Hubble was the first to recognize that ours was only one of a vast amount of galaxies.

While he was studying the light from distant galaxies he found it was not what he expected it to be like. He noticed the light was uniformly shifted to the red side of the spectrum. This phenomenon became known as the red shift.

Hubble found an explanation for the red shift by applying the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect says that if sound or light waves are emitted from an object moving toward you, the waves are compressed or shortened. In the case of sound, the shortening of the wavelength increases the sound’s pitch. The farther away the object is as it moves towards you, the shorter the wavelength and the higher the pitch. As the object is moving away from you, the sound waves are lengthened and the pitch shifts lower. The Doppler effect is what describes the change in pitch you hear in sirens from ambulances. As the ambulance gets closer to you, the sound you hear drops towards its natural pitch. And as the ambulance gets farther away the siren drops progressively lower than its natural pitch.

Hubble applied the Doppler effect to the light waves he was studying. The blue end of the light spectrum is composed of the shorter wavelengths, while the red end is composed of the longer ones. Everywhere he looked in the universe he saw a shift in the light towards the red end of the spectrum. This meant the stars emitting the light are all moving away from each other. Thus the universe is expanding.

Other scientists took this discovery and built on it. If the universe is expanding, it must have beginning, a point of origin from which it was expanding. Other discoveries were made that showed the expansion is slower now than it was when it began—like an explosion. This explosion became known as the big bang, the beginning of the universe.

The two primary challengers of the big bang theory are the steady state theory and the oscillating theory. The steady state theory argues the universe has always existed and always will exist. There are two problems with this. It does not account for the observations that support the big bang, and it would require the existence of actual infinites. The fact that there is a now makes the theory of an infinite number of preceding moments an impossibility.
The oscillating theory says that the universe will eventually stop expanding and contract back to a singularity which will then explode and continue a cycle that will repeat forever. The problem is a cycle of oscillations without beginning or end would require the existence of actual infinites.
But since we exist in the current oscillation, there must be a start to the cycle. The other problem is the second law of thermodynamics. The energy in the universe is not infinite. Just as a rubber ball bounces lower and faster with each bounce until it stops, an oscillating universe would eventually run down. Again, an oscillating universe must have a beginning.

The big bang remains the best explanation for the current state of the universe. But if the big bang was an explosion, why did it explode? What exploded and where did it come from? Explosions are effects and effects need causes—they do not cause themselves. The cause of
the big bang is not to be found in the physical universe because that is precisely what exploded.

Also, the matter that exploded did not create itself. The non-existence of actual infinites shows that matter cannot be eternal. So, because the universe had a beginning, something must have initiated it. It did not start itself. The cause of the universe must be found outside of the universe; it must be transcendent.

The cause must be powerful in order to create the entire universe out of nothing. The cause must not be an effect, but is an uncaused cause. And this cause must not rely on anything else for its existence; it must be non-contingent—or necessary.
Note that this only describes what is necessary for the big bang to work. But if there is such an entity as the one described it’s still not sufficient for the creation of the universe. Just because this entity does exist does not mean the universe must exist. Something is still missing—intentionality, a will to make it happen.

A car that has a working engine, a healthy battery, a properly connected electrical system to start the engine, and is full of gas has all the necessary conditions for running. Yet parking lots are full of cars that have the necessary conditions to run but are not running. Although they have the necessary conditions, they lack sufficient conditions. Cars that are moving down the street have necessary and sufficient conditions for running—that is why they are moving. What do the moving cars have that the parked cars do not? They have drivers. And what is a driver? It is a personal being that can act on their will. Thus, the universe needs a driver, a personal, intelligent agent that can choose whether to create the universe or not. This necessary and sufficient cause of the universe is what we call God.

It is important to be honest about what the cosmological argument does and does not prove. It does not show that the God of the Bible is the one true God. Remember, this argument is also used in Islamic apologetics. However, the God of the Bible is consistent with the picture of God
the cosmological argument describes. If our case for Christianity relied only on the cosmological argument, it would fail. But when we use it in conjunction with other arguments, it is a powerful component of a persuasive case.




Source; Apologeticbible.com


cc; KingEbukasBlog, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman

Gpdwise:
I have been trying for the past three (3) hours now to explain the concept of God to my six year old half brother. who recently just returned from the states. I tried reading using the bible and he asked me the most difficult but simple question. Big brother where did God come from if you said there was nothing in world!! I dropped the bible immediately.

I tried using nature to explain that the beautiful flowers, birds and sea were created by God. Then he asked me who created God because mama bird and papa bird will have junior bird and for the flowers I need to plant its seed for them to grow.. so big brother who is papa God

@Gdpwise: This is a rational question and therefore require a rational answer. First of all there is nothing wrong with the question and the answer is also simple. God has given every sane human the capability of rational thinking.

From your explanation above your half brother believed you when you told him that God created all the things you mentioned. He did not denied what you told him but rather went further to ask you who created God which is a rational question.

My answer is therefore as follows:

What comes to mind rationally is 3 possibilities

1. God was created by someone

This is false because if He was created by someone then He would have been a creature not a creator.

2. God created Himself

This is rationally absurd because it implies that there was a boundary where He existed and not existed at the same time. This irrational because if you observe either one is sleeping or awake, dead or alive. There is nothing like sleeping and awake at the same time like wise there is nothing like being dead and alive at the same time.

3. He is Limitless, Omnipotent

He is not created. He has no beginning and has no end. He existed before time. And this is the only rational answer.

We that believe in God chose no. 3 because is the only rational answer while 1 and 2 are not rational.

3 is also not rational either it makes no sense at all
It is OK to believe it BUT it is NOT RATIONAL

aribisala0:
3 is also not rational either it makes no sense at all
It is OK to believe it BUT it is NOT RATIONAL

No. 3 means God the Creator of Man, Life and Universe is outside the Universe hence is beyond time and space which is perfectly rational

YakubuA:


No. 3 means God the Creator of Man, Life and Universe is outside the Universe hence is beyond time and space which is perfectly rational

That is what it means to you. To me it is gibberish No one knows any of those claims to be true

AnonyNymous:

1. As I've said, people like Criss Angel and other illusionists make things so real. Howeve, there are verifiable cases of supposed 'reincarnation'. I explain this with the M-Theory, which has studies that infer that consciousness might actually not be a part of the body, and that space consists of 11 dimensions including 'fine' matter, instead of the thee x,y,z spatial dimensions we know. So that 'consciousness' could be what you're referring to as a soul.
This is just a hypothesis, however, and I have not seen any study calling our mind the 'conscience'.


2. You made this statement:

And you're missing the point of my responses. If the holy spirit is what is telling us what to do orn not, what about our forefathers? Who was telling them? Or what about people in say, North Korea who will never even hear the name Jesus in their life? Who is telling them right from wrong? Does that mean you're damned to go to hell if you don't know of the Christian faith?

You missed the point again.
The spirit in humans (what you referred to as the mind), not the Holy Spirit, is what science refer to as conscience.

aribisala0:
That is what it means to you. To me it is gibberish No one knows any of those claims to be true

Rational is what is sensible.

What other option do you have?

YakubuA:


Rational is what is sensible.

What other option do you have?

Sensible? I am sure Boko Haram members think they are sensible.

The option I have which seems sensible to me in this matter is for us to tell ourselves THE TRUTH< which is........

We have absolutely no knowledge about how the world came into existence or about any Gods


that is the simple truth. Let us stop lying and deceiving people with superstitious guesses and just admit . WE DO NOT KNOW

oglalasioux:


I mentioned my belief that a power is behind the big bang. Let's call that power God.

My point is; is the God of the big bang the same with the christian or Islamic God? My answer is NO and these are my reasons.

1. The first real evidence of the big bang was found in 1964. You can still see or hear the bang when your radio or tv is tuned away
from broadcast channels. It's not speculation. Turn on your tv or radio to empty channel and see or hear it yourself. If it was the biblical or Koranic God that was behind the big bang, he must have revealed that to Moses and Mohammed. What the bible and Koran said about creation is far far from what
science has found out with clear evidences.

2. God of the big bang who made over 200 billion galaxies; each galaxy is in turn made up of 400 individual stars. The distance between two stars, example, the nearest one to our solar system, alpha centauri, is at
least 4.37 light years away. One light year looks like this in kilometers; 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. So a God who made such an astronomical universe will chose the Jews and the Arabs to administer the earth by bringing a vindictive religion that knows nothing more than killing each
other, spreading hate and carrying out genocidal murder for him. I don't think so.

3. I believe there's a God behind the big bang but I can never believe the bible nor the Koran was dictated by him. I think
mankind, especially the Jews, simply found
out the laws of physics that govern the universe; gravity, electromagnetism and the nuclear forces and manipulated them to their whims then created a god whom they will claim gave them that power (same for traditional African religion).

4. The bible and Koran are the best hand books for killers, murderers and usurpers. It can never have been authored by a God who made the whole universe.

5. How we find the earth; natural disasters,
diseases, wars, inequality, death etc are not as a result of Adam and Eve eating a forbidden fruit. When you know the history of the universe you'll know those flaws are inevitable. Take our solar system as an instance; out of the 8 planets, only earth
could develop life because of it's distance
from the sun. Everything in the universe is chance. Nothing anywhere is determining what or who we are. But the religions have taught us otherwise. It's erroneous to believe that a god somewhere will save a passenger out of a bus full and allow others perish in a road accident.

Let's take a breath.

Let me tell you what you're doing. You're leaving a simple question unanswered and repeatedly venting your fury on religious beliefs. Not that there's anything wrong with questioning stereotypes generally, only that in doing do you're leaving a simple question unanswered. Let us for a second forget bout what the Bible or Koran or whatever books there are says and address the timeless question of where did it all come from. I like your admission that there is a power behind the big bang or to put it as someone else did, for there to be a big bang there has got to be a big banger. I'm just curious to know what the power of the big bang is and why science, in all its grandeur and awesomeness has not been able to sufficiently explain something seemingly simple as the source of all life and finally but equally importantly why the big bang believers have actually BELIEVED it's findings as truth even though it still has not sufficiently explained the source of all the universe.

aribisala0:
Sensible? I am sure Boko Haram members think they are sensible.

The option I have which seems sensible to me in this matter is for us to tell ourselves THE TRUTH< which is........

We have absolutely no knowledge about how the world came into existence or about any Gods


that is the simple truth. Let us stop lying and deceiving people with superstitious guesses and just admit . WE DO NOT KNOW

It amazes me that for millions and millions of years science has not given us sufficient answer to what appears to be the simplest of all questions - where did it all from?

When all is said and done (I mean the venting against religion and it's role in societal ills, etc etc) we will still come back to this question

Shall we admit that the answer to the question is not in the purview of science? I don't know but I'm still curious as to why science does not seem to have the capacity to answer this question

.......

Gpdwise:
I have been trying for the past three (3) hours now to explain the concept of God to my six year old half brother. who recently just returned from the states. I tried reading using the bible and he asked me the most difficult but simple question. Big brother where did God come from if you said there was nothing in world!! I dropped the bible immediately.

I tried using nature to explain that the beautiful flowers, birds and sea were created by God. Then he asked me who created God because mama bird and papa bird will have junior bird and for the flowers I need to plant its seed for them to grow.. so big brother who is papa God

For my ways are not your ways! He is using human knowledge to think of God! so tell him, God is not man and he doesnt think like us, hence he should stop trying to understand him.

aribisala0:
There is God There is no GodThere is God There is no GodThere is God There is no GodThere is God There is no GodThere is God There is no GodThere is God There is no GodThere is God There is no GodThere is God There is no God.....................

GOD is real.

sobastical:
The earlier the better you should start praying for him, it is better now that you're aware of this at the early stage. The best thing to do is to pray for him fervently and show him some picture bible story book and pray before you do that as well.

God will open his eyes to the truth. Shalom

Pray for him because he z using his brain to reason or what?
Isn't that(reasoning) what we should all be doing. But instead we chose to be blinded by faith. A faith which brings us to believe in God but forbids us to think about how the God came to exist.

nino10:
A common argument
from atheists and skeptics is that
if all things need a cause, then
God must also need a cause. The
conclusion is that if God needed
a cause, then God is not God
(and if God is not God, then of
course there is no God). This is a
slightly more sophisticated form
of the basic question “Who
made God?” Everyone knows
that something does not come
from nothing. So, if God is a
“something,” then He must have
a cause, right?
The question is tricky because it
sneaks in the false assumption
that God came from somewhere
and then asks where that might
be. The answer is that the
question does not even make
sense. It is like asking, “What
does blue smell like?” Blue is not
in the category of things that
have a smell, so the question
itself is flawed. In the same way,
God is not in the category of
things that are created or
caused. God is uncaused and
uncreated—He simply exists A common argument
from atheists and skeptics is that
if all things need a cause, then
God must also need a cause. The
conclusion is that if God needed
a cause, then God is not God
(and if God is not God, then of
course there is no God). This is a
slightly more sophisticated form
of the basic question “Who
made God?” Everyone knows
that something does not come
from nothing. So, if God is a
“something,” then He must have
a cause, right?
The question is tricky because it
sneaks in the false assumption
that God came from somewhere
and then asks where that might
be. The answer is that the
question does not even make
sense. It is like asking, “What
does blue smell like?” Blue is not
in the category of things that
have a smell, so the question
itself is flawed. In the same way,
God is not in the category of
things that are created or
caused. God is uncaused and
uncreated—He simply exists

You speak as though you've seen and known God on a more personal level. I would have respected your stance if u were more clear on the fact that religion is just faith based, despising realities and rationality. Then it begs for more scrutiny on why God created rationality in the first place.
Your opinion is subjective as opposing objectivity. That in itself is flawed.

aribisala0:
Sensible? I am sure Boko Haram members think they are sensible.

The option I have which seems sensible to me in this matter is for us to tell ourselves THE TRUTH< which is........

We have absolutely no knowledge about how the world came into existence or about any Gods


that is the simple truth. Let us stop lying and deceiving people with superstitious guesses and just admit . WE DO NOT KNOW

Rational thinking is the most simple and assured way to reach a reasonable conclusion on this matter. In addition every sane human-being has inbuilt capability of rational thinking. Furthermore the question raised by that boy was also rational hence the answer must also be rational.

I am sure when you see a car on the road your conclusion will be it was designed and manufactured by someone even though you may not have met the person. This is rational thinking. So if a car, rationally, cannot come into existence except by someone's design and manufacturing then by greater extent Man, Life and Universe which are more complex than car could not exist without a Creator. This is rational.

chrmn1:

It amazes me that for millions and millions of years science has not given us sufficient answer to what appears to be the simplest of all questions - where did it all from?

When all is said and done (I mean the venting against religion and it's role in societal ills, etc etc) we will still come back to this question

Shall we admit that the answer to the question is not in the purview of science? I don't know but I'm still curious as to why science does not seem to have the capacity to answer this question

.......

And you believe the Biblical account of creation is real
It sounds more like a myths. How do you explain about 8 billion human population being descendants of two parents within the space of 7000 yrs.

chrmn1:


Let me tell you what you're doing. You're leaving a simple question unanswered and repeatedly venting your fury on religious beliefs. Not that there's anything wrong with questioning stereotypes generally, only that in doing do you're leaving a simple question unanswered. Let us for a second forget bout what the Bible or Koran or whatever books there are says and address the timeless question of where did it all come from. I like your admission that there is a power behind the big bang or to put it as someone else did, for there to be a big bang there has got to be a big banger. I'm just curious to know what the power of the big bang is and why science, in all its grandeur and awesomeness has not been able to sufficiently explain something seemingly simple as the source of all life and finally but equally importantly why the big bang believers have actually BELIEVED it's findings as truth even though it still has not sufficiently explained the source of all the universe.

It's been 400 years since Galileo turned his telescope to the heavens and changed our view of the universe. In those 400 years science has been able to disprove thousand years old beliefs and speculations. Since science takes a procedure; investigate and verify, it's normal for it to take it's time in unravelling the rest of the wonders of the cosmos. The ones we can't explain today will be left for our children tomorrow just as Darwin and the rest gave us theories which we've been able to verify even if their proponents died hundreds of years ago.

However, the origin of life is not far from being unravelled. The fusion that goes on inside the cores of stars made carbon, the most important component of life. Amino acids, which carbon is a key component, has the ability to copy itself and that's the origin of life.

Everything that exist on earth was made in the core of stars. Stars themselves are clusters of hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen atoms were made within the first 3 minutes of the big bang and, just as you and I agreed, a God is possibly behind the big bang. What I stand to counter is that this God behind the big bang can never be the same gods of the religions.

YakubuA:


Rational thinking is the most simple and assured way to reach a reasonable conclusion on this matter. In addition every sane human-being has inbuilt capability of rational thinking. Furthermore the question raised by that boy was also rational hence the answer must also be rational.

I am sure when you see a car on the road your conclusion will be it was designed and manufactured by someone even though you may not have met the person. This is rational thinking. So if a car, rationally, cannot come into existence except by someone's design and manufacturing then by greater extent Man, Life and Universe which are more complex than car could not exist without a Creator. This is rational.

Then how do you prove this your god, cos there ought to be a rational means of doing that, just as u were able to rationalize the car illustration, I expect u to do same in explaining God. Or is he too complexed to be rationalized? Then he is not the source of rationale, it simply prove the possibility of another deity being the source of rationality. Cos your god seems to be anti rational.
And lastly, which among the thousands of gods is the true God, since you seem s to know him on a personal level

chrmn1:

It amazes me that for millions and millions of years science has not given us sufficient answer to what appears to be the simplest of all questions - where did it all from?

When all is said and done (I mean the venting against religion and it's role in societal ills, etc etc) we will still come back to this question

Shall we admit that the answer to the question is not in the purview of science? I don't know but I'm still curious as to why science does not seem to have the capacity to answer this question

.......

Because the the question is unanswerable. Nobody was there at the start of the universe.

Your own explained is as illogical as it is stupid. You want to use emotional blackmail to force the senseless argument that the universe was spoken into being by a Jewish or Jewish bias man who is uncaused, but the universe itself cannot be uncaused. Sounds very silly.
You guys say all sorts of nonsense;
My God lives outside space and time because he created space and time. - any evidence?

My God is eternal because the universe is internal ( has beginning and end) - any evidence?

My God is perfect, complete, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, but get angry and vindictive if his ego is not continuously and permanently massaged by humans.