TATIME deserves some Miracle Data Package from his God considering the effort he is putting into this.

XxSabrinaxX:

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/fikraforum/view/religion-and-the-israel-palestinian-conflict-cause-consequence-and-cure
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-middle-easts-conflicts-are-about-religion-15205
Religion is huge source of conflict in middle eastern countries. Its true.

My friend, that's big lie! You so much rely on the media but we rely on facts that's proved!
The Bible said Israelites came and drove away the inhabitants of Canaan FROM THEIR LAND and ever since then there has been disputes over boarders till today! Palestinians are only using Islam to get Arabian allies against Israel, their are mega Churches and Mosques in both countries so what religion are they fighting for!
Arabs wants to regain world power and they've discovered that Rome's dominance lasted longer than any other ancient world powers,so they want to use Islam to gather more soldiers to support their bid. But the western world has gotten all these information that's why the western world is insisting on FREEDOM of speech expression and worship, it's a diplomatic weapon used to divide the Arabs. That's why Arabs are inflicting TERROR on whoever refuses to join in their bid!

HellVictorinho:
TATIME deserves some Miracle Data Package from his God considering the effort he his putting into this.

We don't believe in miracles these days but power of reasoning!

TATIME:
We don't believe in miracles these days but power of reasoning!

So your God is useless in that regard.

TATIME:
My friend, that's big lie! You so much rely on the media but we rely on facts that's proved!
The Bible said Israelites came and drove away the inhabitants of Canaan FROM THEIR LAND and ever since then there has been disputes over boarders till today! Palestinians are only using Islam to get Arabian allies against Israel, their are mega Churches and Mosques in both countries so what religion are they fighting for!
Arabs wants to regain world power and they've discovered that Rome's dominance lasted longer than any other ancient world powers,so they want to use Islam to gather more soldiers to support their bid. But the western world has gotten all these information that's why the western world is insisting on FREEDOM of speech expression and worship, it's a diplomatic weapon used to divide the Arabs. That's why Arabs are inflicting TERROR on whoever refuses to join in their bid!

You just confirmed what she said by indirectly stating that the Arabs are USING their religion to cause havoc among themselves,which is tragic.

TATIME:
My friend, that's big lie! You so much rely on the media but we rely on facts that's proved!

Ok

TATIME:
The Bible said Israelites came and drove away the inhabitants of Canaan FROM THEIR LAND and ever since then there has been disputes over boarders till today! Palestinians are only using Islam to get Arabian allies against Israel, their are mega Churches and Mosques in both countries so what religion are they fighting for!

You can imagine attacking me for relying to much on the media(who actually do their research and verify information), but then you go on to explain things from a book that wasn't only re-written over the course of many centuries, but has been debunked by historians over and over.
How does that work?

XxSabrinaxX:

Ok

You can imagine attacking me for relying to much on the media(who actually do their research and verify information), but then you go on to explain things from a book that wasn't only re-written over the course of many centuries, but has been debunked by historians over and over.
How does that work?

Hi Sabrine,let's step out of Q&A for a moment.
I wanna know if you listen to rap.
Hell keeps the flows burning just as the intellect of his happy demons burns everyday.

XxSabrinaxX:

Ok

You can imagine attacking me for relying to much on the media(who actually do their research and verify information), but then you go on to explain things from a book that wasn't only re-written over the course of many centuries, but has been debunked by historians over and over.
How does that work?

Hi Sabrine,let's step out of Q&A for a moment.
I wanna know if you listen to rap.
Hell keeps the flows burning just as the intellect of his happy demons burns everyday.

HellVictorinho:

Hi Sabrine,let's step out of Q&A for a moment.
I wanna know if you listen to rap.
Hell keeps the flows burning just as the intellect of his happy demons burns everyday.

Lol . I listen to rap, although i'm very selective when it comes to rappers I listen to.

XxSabrinaxX:

Lol . I listen to rap, although i'm very selective when it comes to rappers I listen to.

May I know one of your favourite rappers ?

HellVictorinho:
May I know one of your favorite rappers ?

Childish Gambino

XxSabrinaxX:

Childish Gambino

Is he based in Nigeria?

HellVictorinho:

Is he based in Nigeria?

Lol, hell no
He's American.

godwinstringed1:
[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]

I know who you are. Your mission over mankind will be short-lived

imagine.

XxSabrinaxX:
Childish Gambino

feels like summer

finalboss:
feels like summer

Yup

XxSabrinaxX:

Lol, hell no
He's American.

Well,I was thinking of the possibility.
But I wish I could record at least some of my written songs.
You can find me on the rap battle category which you can find on the Music Section of Nairaland,anyway.

HellVictorinho:

Well,I was thinking of the possibility.
But I wish I could record at least some of my written songs.
You can find me on the rap battle category which you can find on the Music Section of Nairaland,anyway.

No problem

XxSabrinaxX:

Lol . I listen to rap, although i'm very selective when it comes to rappers I listen to.

That's great.
I will make an attempt to write some lines with you as the subject in the rap battle category.

XxSabrinaxX:

Childish Gambino

How do you like Kendrick Lamar?

LordReed:


How do you like Kendrick Lamar?

I'd say Kendrick is in my top 3 alongside Gambino & Drake

HellVictorinho:

That's great.
I will make an attempt to write some lines with you as the subject in the rap battle category.

Lol. That's sweet

XxSabrinaxX:

I'd say Kendrick is in my top 3 alongside Gambino & Drake

Kool, you've got good taste. LoL.

Alright, let Q&A be paused,
Hell wants to have some fun and I've got my buddies on track,
No need for cracks on the wall,
We only prove how to ball and this is the 'Gamers Party',where no one shys away until the time says we have made 'Surreal-Money'.

XxSabrinaxX:

Lol. That's sweet

Guess what?
I've done it!!!!!!!
Go to the rap category and click on the thread at the top of the board .
You will find something like 'Flow For Rank' as the thread.
You might even find me as the last person to click on the thread.

XxSabrinaxX:

I'd say Kendrick is in my top 3 alongside Gambino & Drake

What do you think about my rap?
You can also check out my rap battle with Raptex in a thread named "Challenge" in the rap category.
I took him to the cleaners.
I have other lines in the threads named "Flow For Rank" and "Lines you can never forget".
I have actually written 15 rap songs but I don't know when I'm ever gonna record them.
But I know the niggaz on the streetz are usually better than they who exist in some people's dreams.

XxSabrinaxX:

Yup

Could you do some review of the battle between me and Raptex,please?
And let me know what you think about my lines in the battle.
I need fans/supporters too.
Let the gospel of the 'Ultimate Crap' be spread across the rap world.

XxSabrinaxX:

Ok

You can imagine attacking me for relying to much on the media(who actually do their research and verify information), but then you go on to explain things from a book that wasn't only re-written over the course of many centuries, but has been debunked by historians over and over.
How does that work?

if you don't believe the documents, it doesn't change the fact that Iraq and Iran are still at logger heads due to land dispute. The Bible recorded that Babylon(Iraq) was the world power during the time of Nebuchadnezzar but after him Cirus of Persia(Iran) came and overthrow Babylon.
Well are they also fighting because of religion?
Let them doubt the documents, let them debunk it,let them even mock it the Bible will forever remains RELEVANT!

TATIME:
if you don't believe the documents, it doesn't change the fact that Iraq and Iran are still at logger heads due to land dispute. The Bible recorded that Babylon(Iraq) was the world power during the time of Nebuchadnezzar but after him Cirus of Persia(Iran) came and overthrow Babylon.
Well are they also fighting because of religion?
Let them doubt the documents, let them debunk it,let them even mock it the Bible will forever remains RELEVANT!

Smh
Good night, TATIME. I've already shown you the facts via the links, the rest is left to you.

XxSabrinaxX:
You've cleared my doubt on a few aspects. Either that or maybe I don't really understand some of ur responses. Hence, I'll keep quoting the ones I have issues with.
Edit: I broke my response into two because it was really long.

Okay. I've taken note of that. Thanks for the explanation.

XxSabrinaxX:
Like I explained the last time we discussed, God being the first cause was a tri-omni being before the inception of the universe. In his omnipotence, he chose the various constants of the universe such that every action I take has already been predetermined. If he didn't do this, that means he lacked omnipotence and omniscience - both of which are the most common and vital attributes of the christian God. I still fail to understand how freewill can possibly exist in this scenario. What may look like freewill to us is already a programmed set of actions set in by God. This is a huge contradiction that I've never been able to understand. It implies that God is indirectly responsible for EVERYTHING that happens in our universe.

Should I assume that you could not demonstrate the contradiction you alleged?

Should I also assume that you are satisfied with my answer to your question assuming that free will were possible?

Regarding your objection, I just checked and saw that you did respond to my explanation on your other thread. I did not realize that you did then. Your response however appeared to not account at all for my argument, so let me try again and I hope that your response will be clearer about what your objection actually is.

First off, a free will is only an ability to choose whether to submit to God's Authority or not. Even animals choose whether to play or sleep or mate with this other animal or that other and eat the cat's treats or the dog food in the bowl. Only angels and men make decisions about God's Authority over them. That is what free will is about.

Second, there are only two possible choices here: submit to God or rebel against Him. These choices are the actual true meanings of good and evil. Moral good is submission to God's Authority. Moral evil is rebellion against God.

Third, a free will makes its possessor like God. It makes them able to define their own selves. This point is critical in order to answer your objections, so please pay attention to how it plays out in the next point.

Fourth, God's Will is the best way to define God since God is what He decides to be and will be only what He decides to be. There are no mitigating factors upon His Will. He is Who He is and He does exactly what He wants to do. Creature free will allows a creature to decide what to be just like God does. One crucial difference, however, is that while God's Existence is completely self-driven, creatures can only exist if God makes them. Thus, their free will can only function if He empowers it to function.

Here is what all these add up to:

It is impossible for any creature to make any choice at all unless God actually makes it possible. It is important to understand that just like without electricity electrical devices would never work, without God's Enabling, creation would not work at all. So...

Because God knows all things, He knows exactly what each moral creature would want in their heart of hearts when they come into existence. But these desires would be inexpressible unless He actually empowered them, that is, He must decree them for them to ever materialize. That is where His Omnipotence comes into play. Because He empowers all things, that is, because He makes all things possible, He alone can decree the choices that He alone knew that each moral creature would want to make so that those choices would be actually made.

Thus, by His Decree, each moral choice was made possible.

In other words, because creatures are not self-existing so that they are powerless to even exist much less determine who they want to be relative to God, their free will choices can only be made by them if God decrees those choices Himself. So, instead of God's Omnipotence and Omniscience preventing free will, they actually enable it. You cannot make a choice at all unless God makes you able to do so. That is how free will works. It is not like God's Own Will which is self-empowered.

XxSabrinaxX:
1. The bible is a composite of multiple writings that was put together by man. Some of those writings had contradictions in them that where not dealt with during this process. Its one of the reasons I'm confused as to why some christians hold on to it as the supposedly "infallible" word of God.
A well known inconsistency among the gospels is that Matthew says Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, who died in April 4 BCE, whereas Luke says he was born during the census instituted when Quirinius was governor of Syria — in 6 CE, more than ten years after Herod died. Matthew says the infant Jesus was taken from Bethlehem to Egypt and the family went to Nazareth for the very first time after the death of Herod and their return from Egypt (Matthew 2:23); Luke says Nazareth was already the hometown of Joseph and Mary and that they returned there just a few days after the birth of Jesus.
Another one is that Mark chapter 14 (followed by Matthew, Luke) says that the Last Supper was the celebration of the Passover feast and that Jesus was crucified the third hour (9 AM) on the day after the Passover feast. John 19:14 says that Jesus was sent to be crucified at the sixth hour (12 noon) on the day before the Passover.

I am splitting this number up for an important reason: the above is a debate that will be resolved by two things: historical evidence and linguistic evidence. Your other statements can be resolved just by examining common translations of the Bible.

So, let me ask you: do you know the history here well? What are your sources? Do you know or read Ancient Greek well? Or else do you have some way of being sure of the translations we are going to examine?

XxSabrinaxX:

Was Jesus a peaceful prophet or not?
Well, according to this he sure is:
Acts 10:36
The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ.
And according to this, he sure isn't:
Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

This one is rather weird. It is hardly difficult to see that the Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus came to make peace between human rebels and God but it also clear that that very act forces a separation between people so that those who make peace with God through Him find themselves having to deal with unmistakable hostility from those who do not.

XxSabrinaxX:
Another upsetting discrepancy in the bible for me would be 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, where it seems that Paul is saying that women should be silent in church. This verse has been used throughout the ages to justify sexist attitudes toward women. The thing is, Paul never wrote it. This verse was inserted into the letter by later scribes who didn’t approve of Paul’s actual message concerning women. Paul was a strict egalitarian when it came to gender roles in the church. This is seen throughout his letters and even his most famous disciple, Thecla, was a woman. When one compares this verse to everything else Paul said about women, it is a stark and damning discrepancy. Again, it may not be as big or obvious a discrepancy as Jesus’ parents doing two completely different things to get to Bethlehem or Jesus dying on two different days, but neither of these discrepancies effect the message of the bible or how people act, 1 Corinthians does.
There's more where that came from, but I dont want to exceed my limit on this post.

Could you provide your sources and any other evidence you have for these claims?

Also, how do your claims explain the following?

[11] A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
[12] But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
[13] For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
[14] And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
1 Timothy 2:11‭-‬14 NASB

XxSabrinaxX:
Then there's the fact that God is described variously as just, loving, merciful, caring etc.. At the same time, the deity, on repeated occasions sanctions genocide, at one point throws all of His divine toys out of His celestial pram and drowns virtually all of His beloved creation, leaving a minuscule population of each species to repopulate the planet through (one assumes) rampant in breeding. He threatens his ‘children’ with eternal torture if they don’t love him uncritically and he spends the entire book of Job allowing His most faithful follower to be tormented just so that He can win a bet - when He finally offers Job an explanation for His behaviour, it boils down to “Gosh, aren’t I wonderful?”.

Just, loving, merciful and caring are all actually very discriminatory words. If you are loving toward your child, you won't be very loving toward the dog attacking him. If you want to be just, you would be very unpleasant to an offender. If you are merciful, you would also be just to protect those that you have mercy on. If you care for your family, you will protect them against a gang trying to hurt them. Do you disagree?

Regarding inbreeding, could you demonstrate the contradiction there?

Regarding Job, could you demonstrate how God was trying to win a bet there rather than testing a moral creature to demonstrate what his true heart was to men and angels? Also, demonstrate the contradiction between God's test of moral creatures to allow them make their choices about Him and His Love, Mercy, Justice and Compassion.

XxSabrinaxX:
No to mention he gets a young girl pregnant with Himself, so that later He can later be sacrificed to Himself, thereby saving us from what He was going to do to us.
Does any of this make sense? No. I don't think so.

I completely agree, it doesn't. Now, demonstrate where the Bible teaches the above.

XxSabrinaxX:
2. The entire bible is rife with historical errors, it's hard to just name a few major ones in such a short space.

For starters, there was never a global flood. The human population didn't come from just two people, and certainly was as never low as 8 (the claimed number from the Noahide flood myth)- scientific analysis of our genes shows that the human population couldn't have dropped below around 1500 unrelated individuals and still have the genetic diversity we see now.

Where is your proof for:

1. The non-occurrence of a global flood?

2. The argument that humanity did not come from two people?

3. The claim that human population could never have been as low as 8?

4. This unknown scientific analysis is worth believing?

XxSabrinaxX:
The Jews were never held as slaves in Egypt, thus no Exodus. They were never even IN Egypt en masse, and the Egyptians of the pharaonic period didn't have slaves as suggested in the bible. The monuments of the pharaohs were build by farmers and similar workers in the flood season of the Nile. There is not only zero evidence of the Jews there, but corroborating evidence (from other historical tribes of the Levant area, language analysis, etc) that the Jews never left the Levant at all. There is no evidence of an Exodus of a million odd people as claimed in the bible, and in fact many of the places cited didn't exist until centuries after the time period. The Exodus account was an eighth century BCE justification narrative for a land war with Egypt.

I presume you have some proof of all of this.

XxSabrinaxX:
The Jewish "kingdom" of David and Solomon was nowhere near the size claimed- it was a minor tribal area at best, and even that's a bit shaky. There was no Soddom and Gomorrah- no other culture ever mentioned these allegedly large and prosperous cities, and no trace has been found in the area claimed.

I don't expect that you want me to take your word for it?

XxSabrinaxX:
The Gospels are even full of historical problems. Even if one discounts the utter lack of contemporary evidence for Jesus or any of his supposed miracles, there are other issues. The census NEVER required anyone to go to town of origin of their lineage- that would have collapsed the economy of the Empire. Roman censuses counted just the head of household IN their household- they were for tax purposes, so they cared where you lived, not where you came from. They were also done by province, not empire-wide, and usually subcontracted to the publicans. Further, Matthew states that Jesus was born under the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4BCE. Luke claims it was during the census of Israel conducted when Quirinius was governor of Syria- a post he did not take until 6CE, 10 YEARS after Herod the Great died. So both Matthew and Luke contradict themselves- the census literally could not have occurred at the same time as Herod was alive, yet both describe them as simultaneous. Luke also says that Augustus Caesar decreed "all the world should be registered", which is false.
Herod the Great never slaughtered infants as described in Matthew- despite there being many chroniclers of Herod's abuses, this little gem appears NOWHERE but the bible. Even Flavius Josephus, who extensively recorded Herod's evils, mentioned nothing of this event, which he would have if it actually occurred.
There were many minor errors showing the Gospel writers (Greeks, for the most part) had no clue of the geography of the area- like the story of the Gadarine swine, which Jesus supposedly drove into the Sea of Galilee, despite Gadera being kilometers from the sea. And that's just Matthew, since Mark's said "Gerasa", which was 30 kilometers away. Mark's descriptions of Jesus' movements made no geographical sense and are at times impossible.
No historians of the time, despite living in the area, ever recorded any major earthquakes or skies going black as was claimed happened during Jesus' death.
Interestingly, early scholars that even mentioned what early Christians believed- like Tacitus, Philo, Pliny, Suetonius, Epictectus, Cluvius Rufus, Quintus, Curtis Rufus, Josephus, the Roman Consul, Publius Petronius- never mentioned any crucifixion. In fact, the crucifixion seemed to be unknown even to early Christians until the Second Century!
The trials would never have occurred as claimed in the bible, either. Rather hilariously, a nineteenth century scholar, Rabbi Wise, searched the then-extant records of Pilate's court to find a record of Jesus' trial and found nothing. Pilate was depicted by the Gospels as a good man who only reluctantly agreed to the condemnation of Jesus- but history shows he was cruel and corrupt. It was a likely attempt after the First Jewish revolt to place blame on the Jews, rather than the old tradition of blaming Rome for all their ills. The Romans also had no custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover, and Pilate was known to be far too ruthless to have ever caved to a mob (in fact, there are many records of him brutally subduing mobs). Never mind that it was claimed in the Passion narrative that the Sanhedrin met on Passover night to have Jesus arrested and condemned- when in reality the Sanhedrin were forbidden by Jewish law to meet during Passover at all.

Sadly, I could keep going.

You certainly say a lot here already. But perhaps you can give me something to actually work with, like what your reason for believing these things is. I would rather you make sure of where the goalposts are this time.

XxSabrinaxX:
3. Well, We know the Earth wasn't created in six days, ditto that Adam wasn't made from clay ...... or Eve from one of Adam's ribs. No to mention there's the existence of dinosaurs which disproves the fact that man was created first. Then again, the book of Genesis actually disproves itself, There are actually two creation stories in Genesis, and they're contradictory. In Genesis 1:25-27, animals are created first, then humans (male and female at the same time). In Genesis 2:18-22, Adam is created, then the animals, then Eve.
The Creationists hold that the stories in Genesis are the actual word of God and are therefore absolute and infallible. And by that, they mean the Hebrew god who is the only one true god (i.e. monotheism) according to their belief system. Yet there is plenty of archeological evidence to show that these stories come from much older, polytheistic Sumerian cultures of Mesopotamia.

Why are these things to be believed?

(Editing to answer the creation story argument)

You said that there are two creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Your reason is the apparent order of creation there. Let us see if you are right.


[25]God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
[26]Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
[27]God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Genesis 1:25-27 NASB


[7]Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
[19]Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
[22]The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
Genesis 2:7,19,22 NASB


In the first text, clearly, the description emphasizes on chronology. The whole attention is given to what happens when. Do we see the same thing in the second text? Not really.

The second text actually emphasizes the creation of man himself. In fact, verse 19 of chapter 2 really said, "out of the ground the Lord God had formed..." (see the NIV1984 translation, for example). That is, it wasn't the creation of these animals that were in view but their existence. God was only bringing them to Adam for him to assign an identity to them and see if he would be pleased to take any of them as a partner. But because he found no partner among them, the woman was made.

Nothing there suggested that the animals were created after Adam but before Eve. That part of the story was just about how Adam got to have Eve.

So, no different creation story. It's the same with a zoom-in in the second one to teach us the place of Man and how he came to have a mate.

XxSabrinaxX:
4. You know I don't accept any religion. What I want to know is what makes Christianity different for you from the thousands of religions out there? Is there any empirical evidence that immediately disproves Allah and asserts Yahweh as the true creator of the universe?

I found the Bible to be true in every detail. Now, that in itself is enough. If the Bible is true, I don't need to concern myself with other religions and philosophies. If they are also true, great for those who follow them. If they are not, then maybe those who follow them ought to be looking for the Bible. Still, I do know something about the Qur'an and a few other religions and philosophies. None of them happens to be true. The proof is in the pudding.

(Editing to complete answer on evidence)

Now, the above is really all I want to say in answer to your demand here because it is really what the situation is. But I think that it is only fair to offer such evidence as I can to indicate to you and other readers that, for anyone who is so inclined and willing to be honest about it, such evidence is not lacking at all. It is not necessary to examine every religion and philosophy before determining whether one's faith is right. It is not even possible to do so, therefore, such demands as you made are not necessarily reasonable. I am only answering you because I am particularly gifted and able to.

The God of the Bible is a Trinity. That is, He is a Three-Person God. Three distinct Individuals exist Who each possess the Essence of God and are in perfect agreement with Each Other. So, it is the Nature of this God to be in a loving, harmonious relationship. It is only to be expected then that if He invents a Universe, it will be one where things exist in families. Creation is, even by your own admission, filled from end to end with things which are related to one another and which when in harmony with each other work so beautifully that they are a perfect delight to any observer.

Allah, on the other hand, is a single-person deity. As such, his existence from eternity past is necessarily one of isolation. If such a God invents a creation where relationship and harmonious connection is a rampant theme, it would not be unreasonable to wonder why he did. How would such a God even conceptualise such a thing given that it is so utterly foreign to its nature?

This is a reason that may interest you. Without it, one who knows the Bible would still know that the Bible is true and the Qur'an is false. But it could help anyone who is stumbling or wondering but is willing to be honest about it.

XxSabrinaxX:
That means we agree then that God knew what decision that Adam and Eve will make. If God knew the actions they'll take and the consequences it would bring, why didn't he just them if really he's omnibenevolent?

Your question here is unclear.

XxSabrinaxX:
For the first point, I assume you must also remember my response to your answer. For the second, if they don't need to be saved, then why is salvation a thing at all?

I found your answer today so I have treated it above.

Salvation is for sinful people. Not for absolutely perfect people. So, why do you ask why salvation is a thing at all? Are you implying that there are no sinful people?

XxSabrinaxX:
I fail to see how a "relationship" changes the outcome of the prayer

We are probably discussing two different things here. Why does the outcome of prayer need to be changed?

XxSabrinaxX:
Surely, God doesn't need to prove himself to anyone that doubts him by testing them. He already knows they don't doubt him. Hence, making his angels and the humans he created awe at his wisdom by testing them is useless because he knows they acknowledge his limitless powers.

Those who believe in God do so without undeniable evidence - just like atheism and all other religions and philosophies prove. These demonstrations confirm what we already assumed. No doubt is involved here. This is the business of relationship. For example, you may tell your partner that you love them multiple times in a day but that is not because they don't know that you do. It is just to continue to affirm what they already know.

XxSabrinaxX:
Like I've explained, I still can't understand how free will works in a pre-determined universe. Isn't free will basically making your own choices without external coercion? How is this possible when God has already designed your destiny from your birth day to the day you die?

I'm actually not clear how such design means that you are being coerced to make a choice! If God did not empower your choices with His Decree, how would you make them exactly?

XxSabrinaxX:
Who are these "moral creatures" and where did they come from? Was it God who created them, I mean seeing as he is the first cause?

Angels and human beings are the moral creatures. God made them.

XxSabrinaxX:

Well, I'm sorry for trying to search for evidence to back up claims. Maybe I should continue remain brainwashed by a religion I have no verifiable evidence of its legitimacy. Please. Do you even know how these things work? Me disliking religion and arguing against doesn't automatically translate to me intentionally swindling people from their faith! I can easily accuse you of doing the same. There you go again with your baseless conclusions.



Classic. Butthurt because I don't agree with your beliefs. But later you'll accuse me of the same.


That depends on you to be honest. You're the one constantly putting words in my mouth and looking for a way to entrap me by attributing your biased cliche opinions of atheists on to me. If you feel like taking off the kid gloves, I don't mind. Your own is too much.

Okay. That was just fair warning, not really an argument.

XxSabrinaxX:
I know enough to know that it pales in comparison to other theories when held up for scrutiny. Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Okay then. What about Occam's Razor?

XxSabrinaxX:
I'm lost. Explain how you came at this conclusion. Was it specifically stated in the bible? You have an annoying habit of shifting goalposts when your claims have been called out.


Like I said, a documentation would suffice for this story of yours. Are you actually quoting documents or are you making all this up? How does this story support the evidence of the creation story as explained in the bible?

How do I shift goalposts? I did ask you if you are sure that you know what the Bible says. And my very first response to you on Nairaland was to correct straw men that you built in place of Christian arguments. If you don't know the Bible but think that you do or pretend that you do (I'm still not sure how much is outright ignorance - a lot, I'm certain - and how much is just sheer mischief), then when you think you've destroyed a biblical argument, it may only be a straw man that you wasted so much energy on. That's not me shifting goalposts. It's you not knowing where the goalposts are.

Now, before I answer your demands for proof here, I need to know that you are actually asking for and are willing to receive Bible passages which actually teach these things I have claimed. I really can't have you insisting later on on the foolishness of trying to convince an atheist to believe the Bible. The Bible is just what you are confronting here and if you are willing to see if it says what I say that it says, I will show it to you. But, you will not be able to dismiss it later because the issue here is not the Bible's authority, just its corroboration of what I claimed.

XxSabrinaxX:
Do you know the one thing you don't want to admit, Ihedinobi3?; Is that you don't know. They're all theories! I said it myself that maybe a god exists, but there is almost no way to know FOR A FACT that this is true. Evolution? The Big Bang? Creationism? THEORIES!

How can you tell that I don't know? What is your proof?

XxSabrinaxX:
Have you ever researched Abiogenesis? First of all, Evolution(like i've said billions of times), is a theory. So is Creationism. Theories are uncertain. Start with family relationships. Living things can be classified into species, genera, families and so on, and Darwin pointed out that this is exactly the structure we would expect from a family tree. All dogs are canines, so dogs share an ancestor with foxes; all canines are carnivora, so dogs share a more remote ancestor with bears; all carnivora are mammals, so dogs and sheep are, albeit more remotely, related, and so on.
Then look at the discovery over the past few decades of family relationships at the molecular level, and the fact that the molecular family tree matches that based on anatomical resemblances.
Observe the fossil record. Once lamentably full of gaps (Darwin was among the lamenters), it is now densely populated. A century ago, it still made sense to point to the “missing link” between humans and pre-human apes. Now we know of several different hominin species living alongside each other, and the problem becomes one of distinguishing our grandparents from our great uncles. And yes, there are missing links in the chain, but without evolution we would not have a chain at all.
And then there’s biogeography: for example, why marsupials are only found in South America and Australasia, and except for a few species that made their way across the Isthmus of Panama, are never found elsewhere.
Plus we can actually observe evolution, and study it in the field or in the lab. The emergence of pesticide resistance is evolution in action, as shown in the justly famous Harvard/Technion demonstration “evolution on a plate”. So is the delightful Russian experiment of breeding tame foxes. Artificial selection, just as much as natural selection, is evolution in action.
And finally, and most convincingly, we must look at the way that these different lines of evidence mesh together. We can apply biogeography to the fossil record, and link it to what we know about the movements of the continents. Using the methods of molecular biology, we can identify and time the mutations that led different species to diverge from their common ancestor, and match the timing against the fossil record. Now I'd take all this over the creation story which (mind you I'm taking from the bible, unless there is some other document explaining the creation story), implies a human being created from dust, and so many other contradictory facts that I may be forgetting right now. The only way to justify the creation story to me, is to employ metaphorical theism and even that fails because you can't just interprete a passage to mean something you're not 100% certain of.

Please explain to me the difference between the above highlighted text and the following quotes from my post to which you were responding here:

"One organism spontaneously changes in some fundamental way and results in offspring that are different?"

"And a primordial soup of proteins results in all the incredible flora and fauna that we see?!"

Basically, I'm asking why you think I needed a lesson in evolutionary science.

XxSabrinaxX:
THIS. Is exactly my point. Science has no answer for the supernatural. Nobody can know for certain if the paranormal exists! So how did you not only come up with the idea of deity's existence, but also the name of the deity and the legitimate religion?

The question in view in my post is the one of origins and ontology. It is impossible to figure out using scientific methods how the Universe came to be and what its fundamental nature is. Those questions are necessarily supernatural because they seek to go beyond nature to find the cause for it and the fundamental meaning of it. This is where religions and philosophies and faiths of all kinds come in.

XxSabrinaxX:
Do yourself a favor and adhere to your own advice.

I do, in fact, as you will be finding out soon enough.