Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,195,020 members, 7,956,785 topics. Date: Monday, 23 September 2024 at 06:52 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God (7496 Views)
5 Old Beliefs Of Pastor Kumuyi Of Deeper Life Which He Latter Abandoned / The Dome Above The Earth Will Shatter Beliefs And Topple Nations-abachwezi / Is It Only Africans That Believe In The Existence Of Ghosts And Witches? (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by Nobody: 9:05pm On Apr 17, 2018 |
hinograce: Where is it? And please while at it you should at least have the courtesy of researching to know what implications that kind of global deluge should and must have on life and the geologic scale. For instance, genetic evidence should be able to show (back up) the deluge by showing that each species on Earth can be traced back to a single breeding pair 3000 yrs ago (or whatever age depending on when the flood took place). Such a flood would also have evidence on a global scale, not a local one. Also maybe touch a little on how 600 yr old Noah and his family have managed to bring forth all the races of the world today in a just few millenia. One problem with people ( Also, maybe explain why God has such a poor memory: "But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided." 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by jom28gy(m): 10:32pm On Apr 17, 2018 |
It wondered me that people argues the existence of God, why he is richly exist, he exist everywhere and personified on earth. 1 Like |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by johnydon22(m): 2:25pm On Apr 18, 2018 |
kevoh:and they are right only mistaken by assuming inability to explain a mystery now means inability in perpetuity (Mystery simply means things waiting to be figured out)
There are three branches of human knowledge, two of which are intuitive and the other empirical. 1. Logic 2. mathematics 3. Observation. Apart they are great sources of knowledge but are grossly wanting, together, they have greater chance of reaching a truthful approximation. Science amalgamates these three branches. to answer your question: this argument need not sorely rely on empirical evidences, logical and mathematical evidences can also be put up, refutations and counter refutations based on these premises as long as they do not contradict the laws of logic. In other words; which ever way you feel best proves or disproves the existence of God, we are open to take you up on any premise |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by johnydon22(m): 2:35pm On Apr 18, 2018 |
TayserMahiri:None of them are from the bible, those are simple implications of physics as we know them today. The arguments were derived based on the consequences of the Big Bang model. I don't have to, my argument had nothing to do with any scripture, not the Veda, Koran, Ma'at. That is the consequences of no space and time. "Nowhere" is everywhere and forever is a moment. My post didn't mention the bible and has nothing do with the bible. I said, the movie space-time is dependent on our own 3d space-time continum but is different. So you are transcendent to the movie universe but confined to our own 3d universe and such analogy may be the case with God(s) extra dimensional beings transcendent from our own space-time continuum. 2 Likes |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by Nobody: 11:56pm On Apr 18, 2018 |
johnydon22: Sounds like there is indisputable evidence for God as far as ur concerned. I dont remember reading your proof?? Would I be right then to say that if nowhere was everywhere, and forever was a moment then God was part of this nowhere and was therefore nothing? Your point here is now appearing to show that part of that 'nothing' was God. Dont u think its a bad idea to try to explain these stuff scientifically? I do understand the scientific explanation for the 'time' before the universe but the idea is usually to show that there was 'nothing' before the big bang, not that there was transcedent stuff. You have now ventured into extrapolation. Dont force this line to fit. |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by johnydon22(m): 7:35am On Apr 19, 2018 |
TayserMahiri:I never mentioned this as an evidence for God just an explanation of how God could create the universe without a forever being between then and creation. Wasn't this the original premise we were discussing, why drag a non sequitur premise into it now? Learn to stay in premise, I'm not here to prove God so don't be so defensive. reconcile this logic again No I don't think it's a bad idea. My arguments were sorely based on the implications of physics. The question was answered just as I would when asked 'what happened before the Big Bang?" No the idea is usually not about nothing before the Big Bang actually. -Multiverse theory -Oscillating universe theory (this is recognized as the most likely case) It means the universe is just a product of a previously dead universe. All these are implications of the big bang model. Its not as simple as you thought. Or maybe you should think further on it, expand what you know about the Big Bang theory 1 Like |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by Nobody: 11:03am On Apr 19, 2018 |
johnydon22: So God is already creating a universe without even proving he existed? No one is being defensive, you are the one who is jumping the gun. reconcile this logic again Then you want me to reconcile bad premises for you. There is a reason why your initial statement was wrong but you cant see that. No I don't think it's a bad idea. My arguments were sorely based on the implications of physics. The question was answered just as I would when asked 'what happened before the Big Bang?" So you stand for both sides of the argument? You want to be where you cant lose johnydon22: You actually think you schooled me here! I know all that. Your point about extra dimensions is completely contrary to these. You dont even realize you brought in theories with completely different implications. Thats a whole new argument. This way we get cyclical and never ending, new arguments brought in when old ones fail. johnydon22: Unfortunately my interest is not in showing where or if God lived before the big bang. That has to be your job. You said it! You dont do research with the aim of proving something you preconceive. Otherwise, we would always be misled by our inherent age-old misconceptions about the universe. Preconceived notions are bad basis for research because none of the methodologies will ever work perfectly as results are already determined in your mind. There is an inherent problem with research aimed at showing God was existent in a different dimension. And it doesnt matter what side of the argument you fall, the problem is the same so long as you want to use the scientific method. |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by johnydon22(m): 1:32pm On Apr 19, 2018 |
TayserMahiri:Again, the premise of the discussion was to explain how God existed forever before creating the universe, on that premise there is a fundamental assumption that God exists. That is the way argument works. further example: Peter and Paul of Psquare who is better singer? mr A: Peter is a better vocalist. You: You must first prove they both exist before the comparison. That is not arguments work, they work in premises, you must argue within the premise of a discussion. You may go back to my first reply to you on this post and figure out the premise again. ok This is a discussion, there is no trophy for who wins and who loses, i am on this sorely as an intellectual exercise not a who loses or who wins thing, that to me is grossly nonsensical. Its about finding out what is truth not about winning or losing. Winning or losing worry is just another 21st century way of being petty and intellectually arrogant.
creatio ex nihilo creatio ex materia The idea of the universe creation was never creatio ex nihilo from the Big Bang model, and my explanation on this model since i mentioned you on this discussion have always applied the principles of ex materia. This is not about schooling you but correcting a naive impression on the fundamental idea being ex nihilo. And not one argument i raised has failed, it wasn't even intended as a debate but an alternative to the explanation. Nope it is not. where God lived is still not in the premise discussed. The basic premise you must remain consistent to is: The relationship between God-forever-creation. How they can be reconciled. Assuming your opponents inherent preconceptions isn't really an argument. |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by Nobody: 8:29pm On Apr 19, 2018 |
Again, the premise of the discussion was to explain how God existed forever before creating the universe, on that premise there is a fundamental assumption that God exists. That is the way argument works. Well, if you had read the mood and intention of my post you would know I wasnt affirming God's existence or even the assumption. I was simply trying to show how improbable, spurious and even comical that assumption is. You shouldnt have read it as affirmation for the assumption. This is a discussion, there is no trophy for who wins and who loses, i am on this sorely as an intellectual exercise not a who loses or who wins thing, that to me is grossly nonsensical. Its about finding out what is truth not about winning or losing. One sine qua non of any intellectual argument is that you must have a position or stand to argue for (or against). I understand what you may be saying is you dont like being confrontational, which is surprisingly the case for me. Inevitably, whether we like it or not, our argument becomes meaningless if we cannot figure what it is we are disagreeing about. There is nothing arrogant about winning or losing an argument. Its actually better that way, lest we become sheep like. creatio ex nihilo I must say you are among the very rare breed I know that actively try to weave God into the big bang model. Am not against it but somehow it is bound to fail. You do know God is a matter of faith while the big bang is a matter of evidence. As far as am concerned the arguments you are making are philosophical and will not bode well with scientific matters (big bang model et al.). Am not even philosophical myself! But I have a lot of respect for philosophy for helping invent intellectual thought and scientific method. However, lets be honest, philosophy, due to its consistent failure to produce physical results (as a result of not building upon previous findings) has become largely irrelevant today. Few people recognize philosophy, when science produces visible results every day, things relevant to life for everyone regardless of intellectual status. To be fair, while science keeps progressing, philosophy has been stagnant. There isnt much of relevance to human life and discovery that is acquired from philosophy. Basically wat am trying to say is that I dont think philosophical arguments like Ex nihilo and ex materia will take us anywhere. It is only going to be an argument and thats it! Nothing more. In fact, philosophy is relying too much on scientific discovery and they need to style up. Nope it is not. where God lived is still not in the premise discussed. The basic premise you must remain consistent to is: The relationship between God-forever-creation. How they can be reconciled. I dont think that can be reconciled. Because it starts on the wrong footing. How would it sound if I told you to reconcile that A shot B given an assumption that is yet to be agreed upon? Consider my assumption being that A had a gun, something you disagree because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that A had a gun. But am insistent on you to assume he had a gun and reconcile the shooting, and there was none of us who was present so both of us are on an equal footing as regards this matter. So what if I was wrong and A had no gun, meaning the shooting of B was from another undetermined source? Assuming your opponents inherent preconceptions isn't really an argument. Well, for the sake of taking the discussion a little further? I dont think thats a good idea 4 Likes |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by johnydon22(m): 1:24pm On Apr 20, 2018 |
TayserMahiri:Don't read to reply, read to understand so to avoid always answering things entirely different from my post. I said: the premise was to explain how God existed forever before creating the universe, on such a premise, there should first be an assumption that God exists. Can you point out where i implied your affirmation to this assumption? The assumption of "God exists" was an implication of the premise. Know the difference. This was my post This is a discussion, there is no trophy for who wins and who loses, i am on this sorely as an intellectual exercise not a who loses or who wins thing, that to me is grossly nonsensical. Its about finding out what is truth not about winning or losing. Winning or losing worry is just another 21st century way of being petty and intellectually arrogant. Arguments are meant to determine who is right, discussions are meant to determine what is right I am for the later. And to this i still disagree. When its about winning and losing it becomes less of what is correct. If i argue to win i'd have more care about winning and less care about the validity and objectiveness of my points. Every point would be targeted at stumping my opponent. This is another problem with reading to reply and not to understand, an implication of confrontational arguments, you have to assume your opponents intention at every point. - My arguments here did not weave God into the Big Bang Model (even though i can do this still) - My argument only showed that the explanation of what happened before the Big bang (as science today has it) can be reconciled with the answer of how God existed forever before creating the universe of which i provided two alternate answers that are in coincide with physics as we know it today. The explanation for before the Big Bang is sorely speculative, hypothetical if you will just like my explanations for "God before the universe" Science is in fact the philosophy of nature, most of the theories we have today are results of an imaginative mind, speculations and daring assumptions. Relativity, Big Bang model and so on. Carl Sagan once said: Imaginations may take us to worlds that never are but without it, we go no where. Ex Nihilo and ex materia arguments are sorely reconcilable with science: Both terms simply means: Universe from nothing and universe from something. both sides can be a subject of scientific speculation which today it is. Quite the contrary, Science and theology are both products of Philosophy or more so parts of philosophy. Like i mentioned before, reconciling God existing forever and creating the universe is just like the answer for "What happened before the Big bang" it is sorely on a basis of scientific speculation and its implication. Checking for "what happened before the big bang is like checking for the edge of the earth, there is none cus there was no time therefore before does not exist" Stephen Hawkins. Using God in this sense "Asking how God existed forever before creating the universe is like asking for the edge of the earth, there is none. There was no time, therefore forever becomes irrelevant and inconsequential" I'm yet to grasp the validity of this your analogy to the above argument.
You have been assuming my underlying belief which keeps taking you off the purview of my argument. I have a feeling you have not the slightest idea who you are discussing with. 1 Like |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by GoodMuyis(m): 9:38pm On Apr 20, 2018 |
How much does it cost to post a comment |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by Nobody: 11:05pm On Apr 20, 2018 |
johnydon22: You are some piece of work. All that previous post of mine and you still cant comprehend that the assumption is only sound with you and not with me? Anyway, it seems like we will have to go with your assumption because it has to be your way. What about my assumption that there is no god? I probably have more backup for it than you. The only reason you cannot see this is because it has to be your way. Can you point out where i implied your affirmation to this assumption? The assumption of "God exists" was an implication of the premise. Know the difference. But you went ahead and started lecturing me without understanding what premise there is. The premise you are going with is the one you want, not one that was agreed upon. The topic of the thread should tell you that! The topic is whether God exists or not, you have already concluded he does without proving anything! In fact you're playing with two assumptions; 1. He exists 2. Forever Arguments are meant to determine who is right, discussions are meant to determine what is right I am for the later. Is this even possible? Unless you say arguments determine WHO WINS. Otherwise if the word is 'right' for both cases then there is no difference between them. Is it possible for me to be right and what am saying to be wrong? Argument and discussion is more about tone. And arguments are 'sweeter' due to the vigor while discussions are less so because of lack of heated exchanges. And to this i still disagree. When its about winning and losing it becomes less of what is correct. If i argue to win i'd have more care about winning and less care about the validity and objectiveness of my points. Every point would be targeted at stumping my opponent. Well then, lets have a discussion! But stumping an opponent sometimes is necessary to take care idiots who say nothing very loudly just for the sake of it. This is another problem with reading to reply and not to understand, an implication of confrontational arguments, you have to assume your opponents intention at every point. Then dont mention the big bang in your case about forever/existence. They dont belong together. The explanation for before the Big Bang is sorely speculative, hypothetical if you will just like my explanations for "God before the universe" The difference is that while science will work its ass off to find out what indeed, if anything, preceded the big bang, religion will be sitting pretty, waiting for anything science discovers to hang on and throw in all possible speculations including where and how to weave in God into the newest discovery. Science is in fact the philosophy of nature, most of the theories we have today are results of an imaginative mind, speculations and daring assumptions. Relativity, Big Bang model and so on. Carl Sagan once said: Imaginations may take us to worlds that never are but without it, we go no where. How does ex nihilo and ex materia reconcile scientifically? Is it at the quantum level? Like i mentioned before, reconciling God existing forever and creating the universe is just like the answer for "What happened before the Big bang" it is sorely on a basis of scientific speculation and its implication. Checking for "what happened before the big bang is like checking for the edge of the earth, there is none cus there was no time therefore before does not exist" Stephen Hawkins. It is not the same. In your case, you are one step further afield. You need to make an extra assumption before getting to the same level with science. You see, science is at the big bang level on account of evidence, and speculating what was there before, if anything, is only ONE assumption. In your case, you need first to gain help from science to get to the big bang model level, then make the assumption that there was a 'before' the big bang, and follow it up with another assumption that 1. there was a god 2. who existed forever. Not the same! Somebody here needs to face Occam's Razor. I'm yet to grasp the validity of this your analogy to the above argument. I cant believe that! In my analogy, equate shooting to creation and the assumption of A having a gun to the assumption of a god existing forever. You really have to be blind not to see the that. You have been assuming my underlying belief which keeps taking you off the purview of my argument. I have a feeling you have not the slightest idea who you are discussing with. Who am I discussing with? Am assuming its a human being worth discussing with? |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by Spiye06(m): 11:18pm On Apr 20, 2018 |
tamethem: |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by Spiye06(m): 11:23pm On Apr 20, 2018 |
[quote uthor=nwabekeyi post=66720483]you really don't understand how this thing works, do you? The universe is a result of numerous chemical reactions and these reactions all work together to form a complex universe [/quote]please use your head to think |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by Spiye06(m): 11:38pm On Apr 20, 2018 |
johnydon22:man is Gods most preciouse creation so man must worship the creator and not a creation as himself.so if man worships a creation,he simply makes the creation his creator,and the creator get jealous |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by Nobody: 12:19am On Apr 21, 2018 |
Spiye06: So if we start worshiping a stone God becomes jealous of the stone |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by Gggg102(m): 6:50am On Apr 21, 2018 |
tamethem: chance means anything could happen. if you were walking down the street and you met an old classmate you haven't heard from since your school days, would you say you intended to meet him? no! you met by chance. chance brought you to a favourable conclusion. by chance, you were passing the same road as he. by chance, both of you met. you met accidentally. there was no deliberate effort into making you meet. it just happened. same could be said of the origin of the universe. there could have been no deliberate effort into causing the Universe. it could have just happened accidentally by chance. 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by hopefulLandlord: 7:19am On Apr 21, 2018 |
Gggg102: You'd be surprised to know that many of these people that argue against "Chance" would say they met that old classmate by "Design" and that their flavour of god put several things in place to make sure they met at that very time they did 4 Likes |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by Gggg102(m): 7:34am On Apr 21, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: Which of the laws of probability? 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by Geofavor(m): 9:59pm On Apr 25, 2018 |
Johnydon22, do you believe supernatural beings exist? |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by johnydon22(m): 11:27pm On Apr 25, 2018 |
Geofavor: What do you mean by supernatural? |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by johnydon22(m): 11:28pm On Apr 25, 2018 |
Gggg102: This question is yet to be answered �� |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by Geofavor(m): 7:02am On Apr 26, 2018 |
johnydon22:Basically, above natural; not physical; of sth or a being that the laws of science do not apply to. E.g, demons. |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by franky317: 7:31am On Apr 26, 2018 |
The believe in the existence of God is purly a mind game. It is one of the human psychological innovations that that makes man feel good about being here on earth. This whole idea about God is not really about God, its about man himself. This is why some people will hold unto it no matter the facts against the idea. Over the years man has been so comfortable with the God idea that he feels he can speak to it, kill for it and live for it... he has Gone ahead to even expect a reward from it. Thats the power of the mind. But where really is this God? Why does he not appear? Why does he not speak? Why does he not do some obvious physical things that can leave all his creation in a position of certainty? Many have lived in this earth and died... life has gone from the stone age to the age of information but man has refused to let go of this idea... Does God exist? This is not for man to prove... it is simply Gods duty to make his existence obvious to his creation. If this is a task too hard for God, then man can comfortably say GOD DOES NOT EXIST without having to apologize. 11 Likes 3 Shares |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by franky317: 7:36am On Apr 26, 2018 |
Geofavor: Do u believe an 'above natural being' exist? If yes why do u believe? If u believe can u also say u know for certainty that a demon exist? What is the importance of this knowledge how does it change anything? What can we use this knowledge to achieve? Do u think this beings have a hand in the progress man has made to better his living conditions? Hw does the presence of this beong affect the life of those who dont believe? |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by Butterflyleo: 7:52am On Apr 26, 2018 |
[quote author=franky317 post=67038119]The believe in the existence of God is purly a mind game. It is one of the human psychological innovations that that makes man feel good about being here on earth The existence of God is not a mind game and even scientists know this which is why several of them are still trying to rationalise existence outside God and also trying to understand all of nature (which they met and did not create) by pushing forward theories, hypothesis and such like it so as to give a physical explanation to God but have been largely unsuccessful. This whole idea about God is not really about God, its about man himself. This is why some people will hold unto it no matter the facts against the idea There are no facts that exist against the concept of God because facts are based on empiricism which is simply scientific. And it is well known that science cannot prove or disprove God. Over the years man has been so comfortable with the God idea that he feels he can speak to it, kill for it and live for it... he has Gone ahead to even expect a reward from it. That's not the power of the mind. That is actually a reality in all facets of life. We always get rewarded for everything we do be it good or bad. Reward is an unbreakable part of life. You are born. Reward for this is death. You die. Reward for this is life. You work, Reward for this is wages You are lazy. Reward for this is hunger Etc. Every damn thing comes with a reward. But where really is this God? Why does he not appear? Why does he not speak? Why does he not do some obvious physical things that can leave all his creation in a position of certainty? God speaks, God is seen, God is felt, God is loved and is love and loves. All the physical things needed to be done has been done and a majority of his creation attest to this. If I can give birth to a child who looks like me and talks like me and walks like me then its only common sense to know that something else brought me here. Creation resonates God and only the self deceivers would keep denying it such as you are doing. Many have lived in this earth and died... life has gone from the stone age to the age of information but man has refused to let go of this idea... Many who tried to disprove the existence of God have lived on this earth and died and have been long forgotten but God has waxed stronger. People who have embraced him have increased and will keep doing so. Man cannot let go of God entirely because he is hardwired into our DNA. Does God exist? This is not for man to prove... it is simply Gods duty to make his existence obvious to his creation. If this is a task too hard for God, then man can comfortably say GOD DOES NOT EXIST without having to apologize. When you say MAN you obviously mean you and the 7% world atheist population. The remaining 93% say you are a joker and a liar. If you say its not the duty of man to prove the existence of God then why have you been asking theists to prove the existence of God to you? God has already made his existence obvious and he did it with ease. However, the atheist 7% minority have been having an extremely hard time with making God disappear. So if I am to say who is finding things "too hard to do", its you the atheist minority for God has in such a simple manner proven himself. Romans 1:20 cc muttleylaff am I offtrack? 2 Likes |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by hopefulLandlord: 8:11am On Apr 26, 2018 |
franky317: You made a lot of sense, take a bow! 4 Likes 2 Shares |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by johnydon22(m): 11:28am On Apr 26, 2018 |
Geofavor:To that i say No. To me whatever exists, even if its extra-deminsional that we cannot comprehend it, lacks visibility, exists outside our own space-time, is still part of an infinite whole, nature. |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by johnydon22(m): 11:48am On Apr 26, 2018 |
TayserMahiri:The assumption is neither for me nor you, it is an implication of our premise. I have neither argued that God exists or not. My point is, if you are discussing a premise that posits God to do something, the fundamental assumption of that premise must be that God exists (this however have no weight whatsoever on the argument that God exists or not as a separate premise) Its sorely a logical implication. Try to calm down and learn, i am not here to argue that God exists. Here again you are wrong, your assumption that there is no God negates the premise we were discussing, if we assume there is no God as regards the premise, the premise becomes useless and therefore we have no need to discuss it. So your assumption that there is no God can be an implication of a different premise but for the premise in contention its of no consequence or relevant. Not really. I really doubt you could win an argument against me if i argue that God exist, you wouldn't still if i argue that God don't. The fundamental topic of the thread is whether God exists or not, you are completely correct. But then there are side premises that may crop up in a general discussion none the less. Such side premises are; how did God exist forever before creating this universe? This question is not about God existing or not, its about Existence, God, timeline, creation (in one pack) the very question is built on the assumption that God exists in order to make sense. So my side-discussion or reply was on this question, i just provided possible (speculative) but logical explanations on how it could be attainable using answers to similar question regarding the Big bang model. I hope you understand it now Winning an argument does not necessary mean determining what is right. You can win an argument for or against God. it can go both way when it comes to winning an argument but we both know it can't go both in terms of what really is; its either God exists or not. This is where discussion comes in, an idiot can continue to argue even when his/her argument have been utterly shredded. Should i be surprised you still don't understand this application? Does scientific findings exclude religions from forming ideas from its basis? When you say the universe started at the Big Bang, does it mean the universe started from a pre-existing material or from nothing? (it can only go one way) its still amazes me how you fail to grasp that simple application, assume i was arguing for God - this is why i hinted you had no idea who you were arguing with. Before the Big bang is a subject of speculation, so my speculations on possible explanations for "How God existed forever before creation" is built of the most common scientific explanations of Before the Big bang or an implication of extra-deminsionalism which however is still a scientific thesis. Or maybe your analogy is totally lost to the premise in question.
Correct. |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by johnydon22(m): 11:51am On Apr 26, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: Gggg102: |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by Butterflyleo: 12:27pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
Gggg102: The law of large numbers theorem. This shows that for your words to be considered true of the universe being as result of constant chemical reactions, you need to have a record of how many times these reactions occurred and the things involved to influence it.in absence of these information (which are indeed absent) then the law of large numbers refutes you since you are making claims on no data. In a nutshell, if you repeat THE SAME EXPERIMENT over and over again, it means you are likely to get a closer or an expected result eventually. But that would only happen if you repeated the process in exactly the same way and with exactly the same tools every time. Now at the beginning of the universe who holds the record of these chemical processes being repeated or even by the same components or even how the reactions occurred? ......anyone?...*crickets chirping** If scientists claim the universe was chaotic at the start, this means each and every item were busy doing their own chaotic thing and not waiting for any result from the other, hence, refuting their own position about chance happening through chaos. Chance can only occur when this chaos waits for other chaotic situations to catch up and merge with them at a point to bring a reaction which is favourably disposed to the formation of a universe. Something as far fetched as science fiction (aka not a reality). So in the absence of the following the entire chance thing is just a hoax. 1. List of chemicals involved in the reactions at the beginning 2. Number of times they reacted until a favourable reaction occurred 3. What each reaction led to despite not being favourable If such information is available anywhere with any scientist kindly provide it so that we can put the law of large numbers to test. cc Johnydon22 since you have been very persistent you can also dig up the information I asked for. 1 Like |
Re: Forget Personal Beliefs And Sentiments, Let Us Discuss The Existence Of God by johnydon22(m): 1:24pm On Apr 26, 2018 |
Butterflyleo:I will like to talk about this. You mean if you repeat same experiment over and over again, same process and all, your answer would improve each time or remain the same? What do you mean by closer or an expected result? |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (Reply)
Appreciate Your Pastors!! / Flying In My Dreams To Escape Harm. Is It Bad? / Migrant Crisis: Slovakia 'Will Only Accept Christians'
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 216 |