KingEbukasBlog:


Counterarguments by we theists ourselves . Like there are theists who have countered the teleological arguments and that's where the term 'God of the Gaps' was coined . Modern atheists have dug through history and purloined arguments from the opposing side of theism on a particular concept and have branded it theirs . Theism is where intellectualism resides .

Original arguments by the atheists have been arguments from personal incredulity . CoolUserName and Kay17 have a wont for making such arguments . Is there any atheist argument that is tenable ? Of course not .

davtosh:


Since you are doubting if I would know the meaning wisdom should have told you to kuku say the meaning and save yourself from doubt that is if you have it.

Falsifiability which is one of the features of Science as you said means your claim about the creation could be proven faulty like many other Scientific beliefs which have come and gone.

If so then you dont need to be so sure all you have been fed with by Science will stand for ever because one Scientist could rise up tomorrow and trash all your Big bang theory.

That is the meaning of your reply if you really were not sleeping when typing.

lepasharon:



Lol, So god made one disease to combat another?

hopefulLandlord:


warisdis

you're turning to Sciencewatch bit by bit

KingEbukasBlog:

warisdis
you're turning to Hitler bit by bit

hopefulLandlord:


what a comeback

KingEbukasBlog:

Yup . Thanks for the inspiration .

niyihawking:

That is the interesting part my man
if anyone should rise up to disprove the big bang theory, surely such a person must bring forth a better theory more convincing than the big bang, he/ she will have to bring forth a theory that carries more evidence than BB.
that is why the BB is a theory and not a LAW.
if such should happen, we are willing to follow the new theory so far it carries more convincing evidence than the BB, otherwise, we discard it and retain the BB( which right now carries more evidence about the cosmos).
But religion on the other is based on faith( believe without evidence), which betrays common sense.

KingEbukasBlog:


Counterarguments by we theists ourselves . Like there are theists who have countered the teleological arguments and that's where the term 'God of the Gaps' was coined . Modern atheists have dug through history and purloined arguments from the opposing side of theism on a particular concept and have branded it theirs . Theism is where intellectualism resides .

Original arguments by the atheists have been arguments from personal incredulity . CoolUserName and Kay17 have a wont for making such arguments . Is there any atheist argument that is tenable ? Of course not .

KingEbukasBlog:


I think something is a Law because it can be represented or proven mathematically something like that .


Atheism is based on faith ( belief without evidence ) which betrays common sense . Or can you prove to me that God does not exist ?

KingEbukasBlog:


I think something is a Law because it can be represented or proven mathematically something like that .

Atheism is based on faith ( belief without evidence ) which betrays common sense . Or can you prove to me that God does not exist ?

SmartMugu:

Chairman abeg na.
I once begged you to take it easy on small people like me with smaller brains. Your big English is too much for my small brain. Please consider us too. I guess I need to buy a bigger dictionary

felixomor:


Firstly.
Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God Made the Universe".... (GNT)
The Universe encompasses all planets and everything pertaining to space and matter.

niyihawking:

even a chicken can smell your selective dishonesty.

the way you pretend to be humble disgust me whenever I read your comment.... or are you a deeper life member?

adelee777:
''in d beginning God made the heaven and d earth''. The ''heaven'' being referred to hear encompasses d whole universe. Ie all d planets, galaxies etc. So God created all of dem.

Kay17:


'Atheism is a faith' is your newest argument. How wonderful. At least you have accepted that all faiths are without evidence.

The biggest proof against your God is the incompatible concept you have made out of him and the improbability

KingEbukasBlog:


There are so many interpretations to the Genesis creation story .

1. Its an allegory : Did God really create everything in just 6 24-hour days ? . Theologians as early as the first century such as Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo suggested that the creation story shouldn't be taken literally . There are so many allegorical views of the creation story . Theistic evolutionists (Christian evolutionists in this case) - people who believe God orchestrated evolution - also subscribe to this perspective .

2. It wasn't actually 24 hour days : Historians and scholars have revealed that "morning" and "evening" are used by the Hebrews to describe the beginning and end of long periods of time . Progressive creationists subscribe to this view : God created life and diversified it over eons - millions of years as science has revealed .

3. Earth was created again , for the second time : There is what is called the Gap Theory - there seems to be a some sort of gap between Genesis 1: 1 and Genesis 1:2 and creationists who subscribe to this view believe that earth(first earth) was created and then destroyed by "Lucifer's flood" . It tends to explain Satan's fall and then his involvement in the origin of sin . Gap Theorists believe that "man" for (Pre-Adamites) and other life forms were created in the first earth but were destroyed before life was created and diversified again in just 6 days.

4. The earth is not actually 4.5 billion years but God made it seem like it : I really don't understand this perspective because I haven't gone deep into it for (I've forgotten the name it was labelled) . But the gist is : God created the earth not too long ago but gave it the appearance of a really old earth .

There are so many others .

KingEbukasBlog:


Saying that Atheism is based on faith does not mean that I agree that Theism is based on faith .

If all faiths are without evidence then you as an atheist has no reason to berate theists who have found the evidence for God in nature.



Looks like the word 'proof' has been redefined . Haven't you heard of one of the ontological arguments that says : if it is possible that God exists, then it follows logically that God indeed exists . The proof -as you have redefined it to be -of God's existence lies in the soundness of this argument.

Kaboom ?

Kay17:

Are these the views of the billion strong Christians or views of a selected few of apologists?

Kay17:


The literal meaning of the text best expresses the intent of the writer. If the writer said God made heaven and earth, then he must have meant what he said and meant what he said and not something else.

Kay17:


Lay out your proof

HCpaul:


What's pertaining to us right? I think that is righteousness 'the only responsibility that we have on earth'.
If you think that life is all about doing good or bad, then you lack something fundamental about the human existence. You are no longer human but a hanuman, you are no longer homo sapience but a mere sapience.
So if what's pertaining to us is righteousness alone, then God himself lack something fundamental about being a Creator as well as his own existence.
At least, we humans too create robots and we didn't just create them to be either doing good or bad but for a more profound purpose.

The Bible was rather written by the inspiration of man's imagination. That's why we have thousand of God's of which the Christian God is only taking the lead.

KingEbukasBlog:


https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing/Samples/shortmed/nelson/sickle.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20450-how-sickle-cell-carriers-fend-off-malaria/

Ignorance with arrogance can kill

KingEbukasBlog:


My comment contained two proofs

1. The soundness of ontological argument

2. The evidence of God in nature

KingEbukasBlog:


You do realize that most Christians are educated and cognizant of scientific theories and philosophical opinions about creation stories . There is in the internet too - a repository of knowledge on so many things . As a Christian , I've reached the most logical conclusion in my opinion about creation and that's special creationism - God created primordial ancestors and allowed evolution to take its course to diversify life .

felixomor:


Firstly, The writer didnt speak in english.
Besides there was no word like "universe" when it was written....

Secondly, And try translating your local language in Google and see the errors that come with it.
That should tell you that no two languages can be translated into the exact meaning of each other.
The best you get is the "nearest in meaning".

Thirdly, get a concordance.
There is already a screenshot of the root word it was translated from above on this thread.
You will get the meanings.
As English language dictionary continues to expand, more meanings of old word translations emerge.

Kay17:


Are you saying that mainstream Christianity believes that God triggered the evolutionary process as a means to diversify life? Do they know why a diversification of life is necessary? Do mainstream Christians accept internet sources as their guidance in faith?

KingEbukasBlog:


I don't think you understood my response . I was just trying to show you that we Christians not just the apologetics are aware of these interpretations whichever way we made these discoveries ( I got to about progressive creationism from Dake's Annotated Bible ) unlike the atheists . I can't speak for everyone .

hopefulLandlord:


warisdis

you're turning to Sciencewatch bit by bit

Kay17:


You have made good sense, I accept there are no two languages that can be translated with exactitude. Most likely Hebrew was the original language in which the Bible was written and it lost its meaning gradually when it was being translated into other languages.

Now show us Hebrew words and why you are convinced they convey a meaning similar to the Universe as we understand to be today.

GoodMuyis:
Their is no other planet, its just us on earth, The Moon, The Sun and The stars. nothing like other planet.

Those images you see in books and Films are all CGI, NASA knew the truth.

Since 1960s Nail Armstrong moon landing scam, we are yet to see another live moon landing, even when technology had advanced for safe landing this days.

We are sending several signals to outer space, try to reach the supposed Alien who MAY had advance technology than us yet no response from them or them trying to come and land on our earth.

A terrible question to asked is what kind of camera did they use to take image of those supposed other planet if the are thousands of miles away from earth, yet such camera cant give us a clear view of moon surface that is so near to is