tintingz:


In what way can we know your God exist?

Any demonstration or evidence?

shadeyinka:

That was why I said "don't mind him: he doesn't understand the implications of the science he's quoting".

Self existence of energy must account for why a gravitational singleton in the first place because it is illogical for energy to self condense in unit space without an external constraining forecast.

Two, every form of energy we know seem to exist because of matter (from Nuclear, the electromagnetic, to electrical , Heat etc). Except there is an unknown form of energy, how can one account for the "self existence of energy".


I completely agree with your explanation of the logic part of the discuss. Whatever initiated the change in the gravitational singleton must be outside it and therefore NOT a THING/SOMETHING. God supercede that logic.

I completely agree with you that an infinite regress is impossible. There must therefore be an Uncaused First cause.

If only tintinz can slow down rather that COPY-PASTE information, he should arrive at the same conclusion (if he is sincere). That's why I said, "don't mind him"

I didn't know your background is this strong. Pls keep up the work!

Ihedinobi3:

Thank you for your kind words.

I don't expect much good from those who oppose the Gospel, especially atheists, because it takes a willingness to violate reason and common sense to deny the existence of God. That is the definition of insanity. It cannot be cured by reasoning. I often engage with such people, but only to answer meaningful questions and demonstrate hypocrisies in their position for the benefit of others.

However, who knows but that your own witness might make the difference in one or two of their hearts and help them come to the Truth and be saved? So, keep working in the vineyard that you have been allotted.

Cheers, friend.

shadeyinka:

No sir!
There were about 6 questions initially and you gave a summary as answer. I just decided that we take them one at a time. With that we can logically arrive at the best if not correct deductions by which our final decisions are made.

I am trying to avoid arguments using the Socrates method. One simple question at a time by which at the end, a consensus would be made.

The question again:

Now, this expansion (of the universe) occurred almost 14 Billion years ago.
So the question is, do you think this "something of high density" had existed thousands of Billions of years before the big bang (stable)
OR
it existed momentarily just before the Big Bang (unstable)?

shadeyinka:

Love you Bro!
You couldn't have said it better.

I used to preach to Atheists in the past but they use the same tactics of scorning the message. No amount of explanation of the gospel make sense to them(actually their choice). I changed Strategy to explaining the reason behind to "faith" but to them it was just something worthy of open scorn.

Right now, I have come to understand that they have categories within them
1. Those who like me are consciously serving their own master satan in evangelism and building up their fellow brethren
2. Those who are just Intellectually convinced about their choice of Atheism
3. The wannabe Atheists
4. Gnostic Atheists who rarely evangelise but hate the mention of God with a passion.
5. Agnostic Atheists who even though don't know the answer but yet claim an intellectual conviction that totally rule out God.

I normally pray more for no. 2 for some of them are open to reason. For the others, I stay in the thread not strictly because of them but because of believers of weak faith or understanding.

Thanks for coming up this thread. You are appreciated.

Shalom.

shadeyinka:

I'm so sorry you completely misunderstood me. I am on your side and I will never ever intentionally look down a brother in Christ.

I was just of the opinion that tintinz doesn't understand the meaning/implication of the science he is quoting.

If you strongly feel we differ on some fundamentals, I am still learning please PM me or if you want, I can PM you.

I'm sorry my brother if I conveyed a negative impression.

shadeyinka:

If you have contributed just one logical or Scientific information here, you could have been treated just a little seriously

jamesid29:

It is all good my oga.
I do not believe we differ on what really matters and I'm also still learning myself and I do not hold any exceptional knowledge. Matter of fact the more I learn, the more I realize the sheer amount of things I do not know.

I'm also sorry if any part of what I wrote came of as offensive.
.

tintingz:
@bolded, is that what agnostic atheism is?

shadeyinka:

No it isn't a definition of "agnostic Atheists" it's a description of a class of agnostic Atheist

tintingz:


My goodness.

[img]https://media1./images/fa7be96565d6a62208b61497b92576b7/tenor.gif[/img]

This is the last time I'm answering this.

The density is in infinite state, there was no time, due to very high or hot density it poured out the particles inside it causing an expansion we know as the big bang and our current universe.

I don't know if the density was hot for billion of years or it happened for a short period of time, there was no time then and we can't possibly know(at least for now).

tintingz:


That will be contradicting on what agnostic atheism means.

shadeyinka:

Good morning my Bro and
Thank you so much for your understanding. I'm relieved.

I still wouldn't mind if you pm me or I pm you to look at points of difference. Everyday we fine-tune our knowledge base to His glory.

Shalom

jamesid29:


No wahala boss... I agree we fine tune our knowledge everyday so I'm also open to learn new things from u. I'll send u a pm boss.

Have a blessed day.

shadeyinka:

Love you Bro!
You couldn't have said it better.

I used to preach to Atheists in the past but they use the same tactics of scorning the message. No amount of explanation of the gospel make sense to them(actually their choice). I changed Strategy to explaining the reason behind to "faith" but to them it was just something worthy of open scorn.

Right now, I have come to understand that they have categories within them
1. Those who like me are consciously serving their own master satan in evangelism and building up their fellow brethren
2. Those who are just Intellectually convinced about their choice of Atheism
3. The wannabe Atheists
4. Gnostic Atheists who rarely evangelise but hate the mention of God with a passion.
5. Agnostic Atheists who even though don't know the answer but yet claim an intellectual conviction that totally rule out God.

I normally pray more for no. 2 for some of them are open to reason. For the others, I stay in the thread not strictly because of them but because of believers of weak faith or understanding.

Thanks for coming up this thread. You are appreciated.

Shalom.

shadeyinka:

I wasn't defining the term "agnostic Atheist" or saying what it means, I was only describing a class within the group.

tintingz:
Such person is not an agnostic atheists or better doesn't understand what agnostic atheism means.

shadeyinka:

Let's then take the two options available and go down the rabbit hole.

I agree with you as per time as we know it doesn't exist (for time is measured relative to the creation of matter). That doesn't mean we cannot project forward or backward.


So, let's first assume that:
the density was hot for a very short time

This would be like a state of an unstable stable equilibrium.

1. Do you think such a dense and unstable state can logicaly exist without an external constraining force supplying a vast amount of energy to form such dense state?
(Logically a sudden change of state of a system should require a sudden change in energy state)

After this, we'll look at the state where the gravitational singleton is assumed to have existed for billions of years.

tintingz:


This is a quantum physics field, I'm not a physicist, I only know the basics.

Now whether there was an external force or not, I don't know, even if we assume there is we can't possibly know what it is.


To further answer your question, the density in this singularity was very high and due to chemical reactions or quantum fluctuations it rapidly expanded(big bang). The amount of energy became high, even if we assume some force or forces supply a vast amount of energy in this singularity such force will have to be a natural property which can be energy itself since energy cannot be created nor destroyed. We can make a claim the universe has always exist.

shadeyinka:

We are on a logical quest: checking out what is reasonable when compared with which what we already know.
We already know that which is highlighted in RED. What we need is a logic follow up of what is reasonable before the big bang. Mind you, it's not supposed to form a new theory from existing ones (that job probably belong to experts in quantum physics).

In other words, I'm not asking you to "know" whether an external force exist or not. What I'm asking is a logical follow-up (it doesn't have to be the perfect answer) of the implication of a spontaneous existence of the gravitational singleton. Let's leave the answer of that to theoretical physicists.

Back to the question:
1. Do you think (your opinion) such a dense and unstable state can logicaly exist without an external constraining force supplying a vast amount of energy to form such dense state?
(Logically a sudden change of state of a system should require a sudden change in energy state)

tintingz:


Of course yes, logically something can cause this dense whether external or internal. So?

shadeyinka:

In other words (in the case we have a spontaneous creation of the singleton) something certainly OUTSIDE the gravitational singleton could be responsible for the sudden formation of the singleton.

If you agree with this, we can move over to the next thought question (which deals with: if the singleton had existed for ages before the Big Bang as a gravitational singleton)

tintingz:


Lol, even If I agree something outside it caused the big bang, aren't you going to tell us what it is and doesn't it require a cause too?

Please your logic should cover everything.

peggywebbs:
No matter the amount of explanations and testimonies people give concerning the existence of God. Atheist will still convince themselves otherwise. The bible says the foolishness of God is wiser than men. This same atheist will sit with their smartphones and be asking Christians questions they already have the answers to. They were born in religion and for some unfortunate experiences, they decided to blame God by rejecting his existence since he wasn't there to help them at their most critical time.

If you are curious to know who created God or if he exists, you should be finding your way to explore space, confirm the existence of aliens and go through the ends of the world to find out the truth. Instead you people sit down lazy, arguing without any atom of intelligence just to make sense of your reason.

The fact that you have questions that you have no knowledge of is definite proof that a God exists. Who designed the womb that is able to birth life. How is it that the air we breathe sustains us. Why do we have change in seasons. All these are supernatural. What is the supernatural, it is something that is beyond the human explanation.

Isn't it obvious to you that man can only destroy but cannot create. If you tell me about invention I can slap you from here. Nothing lasts that we invent that doesn't need recharging. Why is it that you are not born with a socket or battery.

If you want to know if God exists or who created God, theb you must be ready to leave science or logic and delve into the supernatural.

Stop finding excuses not to repent. It is better to be safe than sorry. There is a reason you exist on this earth. You were not dropped by a rocket or formed in a test tube.

shadeyinka:

My sister!
You speak the truth but would they listen?
What most of them of have done is to replace the "Creator God" with the "god called Science"!

They never realize that the spirit of man abhor a vacuum. If you are not with God, you must be a slave of satan

peggywebbs:
Scientists that are busy gathering data and disputing it everyday. They are not even sure of how the earth came to be. There are three scientific facts about the earths creation and none of them makes any sense. The worse part is even the sun that is so scorching that no one can ever get close to it and the planets they are just discovering, that are zillions of miles away from the earth.

Was it not the same scientists that started with the earth is flat before their curiosity took them to space. Do these nonsense atheists know how many scientists had died before one successfully reached space.

Even with all the theories, they can't still figure out how organs are created, that's why they still do transplants. Why can't scientists make kidneys, hearts and vital organs to save lives. Ordinary diseases they are still battling for cure.

Atheists are just a bunch of lazy lots, who don't want to take responsibility for their lives but decide to remain bitter. They spend their everyday life questioning a God they claim don't exist. If God doesn't exist why bring up a thread about the same God everyday.

They should repent. There are only two sides in life Good or Evil. There is nothing like in-between. When they die, science can't even explain what happens to them. Or maybe they think they just end. Confused lots

shadeyinka:

The first is to have an agreement. We can talk of the cause of the cause....later.


Don't forget, I've not inserted God into the equation. I have only used words like Force, Constraints, External Influence etc.

Let's move on to the second implication of the the singleton self existing in an almost stable state (extremely slow internal change). As we know that if the singleton is unchanging (a constant), the big bang would never occur. Thus it's actually easy to see that the singleton couldn't have existed forever.

So, let's now assume that:
the density was hot for billions of years

This would be like a state of stable equilibrium. If the gravitational singleton was perfectly stable, then the big bang would never had occured. So, we can logically assume a very slow change from a previous state into the form where we call it a "gravitational singleton" (well before the big bang.

Do you think (in the formation of such a dense stable state) that the singleton can change state without without violating the logical impossibility of an infinite regression?

i.e. there was a changing Force which produced the gravitational singleton (over a long period of time) which later produced the universe which would later arrive at a state of maximum entropy millions of years from now.

tintingz:


No, I won't go down with this kind of argument, you're violating logical argument here.

tintingz:

Your logical argument in your premise is, there must be a cause to the dense since the dense cannot suddenly start getting high temperature meaning something must cause something, now the same logic also apply if there's a cause to the dense, so something causes the cause that causes the dense, yes?.

tintingz:

Please no half-baked logic here, lets first of all trash out the logic of something must cause something.

And secondly, the singularity was said to experience a quantum fluctuations, I hope you know what that means. Either the quantum fluctuations happened as a result of randomness or something caused it, whatever it is the answer is we don't know.

peggywebbs:
Scientists are busy gathering and disputing data

shadeyinka:
Sorry for my late response. I was a little on the busy side today

No sir!

But an infinite regression of cause and effect is impossible!
Do you agree?

The gravitational singleton couldn't have ALWAYS existed. If it had, then it is very stable (irrespective of quantum fluctuations) and would therefore need an external force to change its state.

Is there another alternative for the submission that the gravitational singleton could not have always existed?