[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU[/flash]

What do these atheists reject when being preached at?

you are kidding right?. . .The atheist i know become turncoat at the mention of any God. Infact, they go about counter-preaching to the religionist via their on 'gospel' of "NOTHING" to something which i refer to as the modern version of the voodoo.

[flash=200,200]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__khgIzMyaM&sns=em[/flash]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__khgIzMyaM&sns=em

Rhino.5dm:

you are kidding right?. . .The atheist i know become turncoat at the mention of any God. Infact, they go about counter-preaching to the religionist via their on 'gospel' of "NOTHING" to something which i refer to as the modern version of the voodoo.

I wonder what this gospel of nothing sounds like. Could you explain it to me?

divinereal:

[flash=200,200]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__khgIzMyaM[/flash]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__khgIzMyaM&sns=em

Nice video. Thanks for the reference.

thehomer:

I wonder what this gospel of nothing sounds like. Could you explain it to me?

Oh I can tell you. I posted an example below.

It really is a strange thing when someone preaches a gospel about nothing. It is as if it never happened.

thehomer:

I wonder what this gospel of nothing sounds like. Could you explain it to me?

Idehn:

Oh I can tell you. I posted an example below.
It is really is a strange thing when someone preaches a gospel about nothing. It is as if it never happened.

Men, see DAFT atheists. Una be morons sef. Can you no read? The fella did not say "gospel" of nothing, he said "gospel of nothing to something, in oda words, that since u reject gods existence den you are saying the universe came out of nothing. he ended describing that as voodoo, which it is! Awon ode oshi. Olodos!

Gray Beard:

Men, see DAFT atheists. Una be morons sef. Can you no read? The fella did not say "gospel" of nothing, he said "gospel of nothing to something, in oda words, that since u reject gods existence den you are saying the universe came out of nothing. he ended describing that as voodoo, which it is! Awon ode oshi. Olodos!

First, I know what Rhino.5dm said. I was making a joke based on thehomers question. Apparently sarcasm is wasted you. The internet must truly be a living nightmare for you.

Second, until you actually define what a "God" is, there literally is nothing to be rejected.

Third, from what mankind has observed about the nature of the Universe(conservation of energy/mass/momentum) it seems to have always existed in some form or another. Even if you are arguing from the premise that something could not have come from nothing, the logical conclusions are these:
A) The Universe never existed
B) The Universe always existed

Since A is obviously not true, it must be B).

Na wah oooo, see stooooopidity in broad day light, chai.

Idehn:

First, I know what Rhino.5dm said. I was making a joke based on thehomers question. Apparently sarcasm is wasted you.

Dey dia dey lie. If you know what Rhino said, then there was notin to be sarcastic about.

Second, until you actually define what a "God" is, there literally is nothing to be rejected.

u norr get dictionary? Use am now?

Third, from what mankind has observed about the nature of the Universe(conservation of energy/mass/momentum) it seems to have always existed in some form or another. Even if you are arguing from the premise that something could not have come from nothing, the logical conclusions are these:
A) The Universe never existed
B) The Universe always existed

Since A is obviously not true, it must be B).

FOOOOOLISHNESS on the streets of ashkelon! How on earth does the something and nothing argument lead to a conclusion that the universe never existed? It only leads to a conclusion that sometyhing must have preceded it, where ya brain dey?? Inside ya yansh

The second concusion you have up there is c.rap, because what we know about the big b.ang rebutts that s.hit.

Bros, i norr get ya time.

I'd have to say also that the atheists also suffer the 'rejection' symptoms when their own ideological positions are not accepted. Perhaps not as strongly as the theists, but they still do too. As long as a person has an ideology or way of thinking in which he or she deeply identifies with(i.e derives his/her sense of self or identity from it) to propagate and or defend, this feeling of rejection will always be present whenever such a person encounters another who shows skepticism  towards their deeply held ideologies or beliefs.
Almost every human carries this baggage and it comes from the EGO. This is where the teachings of Eckhart Tolle come in handy. He explains the effects of the EGO in human beings in great detail.

The video is enlightening, if a tad one-sided.

thehomer:

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU[/flash]

What do these atheists reject when being preached at?

Gray Beard:

Men, see DAFT atheists. Una be morons sef. Can you no read? The fella did not say "gospel" of nothing, he said "gospel of nothing to something, in oda words, that since u reject gods existence den you are saying the universe came out of nothing. he ended describing that as voodoo, which it is! Awon ode oshi. Olodos!

You must be quite intelligent with the way you attempt to communicate. Even if I misread what he posted, do you think your attempted rectification does anything better? Some say it is possible for that to occur, I say something different. But for you to claim God did anything, you would first need to show the God you're talking about. Though I don't expect much from one such as yourself.

thehomer:

But for you to claim God did anything, you would first need to show the God you're talking about.

^ abeg use dictionary joooor. u tink say i get time. nonsense.

Jenwitemi:

I'd have to say also that the atheists also suffer the 'rejection' symptoms when their own ideological positions are not accepted. Perhaps not as strongly as the theists, but they still do too. As long as a person has an ideology or way of thinking in which he or she deeply identifies with(i.e derives his/her sense of self or identity from it) to propagate and or defend, this feeling of rejection will always be present whenever such a person encounters another who shows skepticism  towards their deeply held ideologies or beliefs.
Almost every human carries this baggage and it comes from the EGO. This is where the teachings of Eckhart Tolle come in handy. He explains the effects of the EGO in human beings in great detail.

The video is enlightening, if a tad one-sided.

There is a difference between rejecting something when the evidence and the reasoning behind it has been presented and rejecting something in the absence of evidence in support of it.
The fact that we all have our ideas and opinions doesn't mean that you'll be threatened for not agreeing with them. This has been the main thrust of the recent movement.

Gray Beard:

^ abeg use dictionary joooor. u tink say i get time. nonsense.

Dictionary for what? Did I use any words that confused you?

Osanobua, o , wetin be dis? no be una dey ask for definition? Dictionary dey now, try am.

I ain't looking for any definition so i dont need a freagin dictionary. na u dey ask for definition, so plssssssssssssss try a dictionary!

useless time-waster

Atheists have not yet presented any conclusive evidence to deny the existence of the creator of the physical universe, and they will never be able to, if i may add. And that can irk a lot of atheists, too.

thehomer:

There is a difference between rejecting something when the evidence and the reasoning behind it has been presented

Of course, you are right there. This is why i originally pointed out that the feeling of rejection is more pronounced in the theists, or more accurately, the religionists of the Abrahamic kind than the atheists who are not as intensely attached to their ideologies.

thehomer:

and rejecting something in the absence of evidence in support of it.
The fact that we all have our ideas and opinions doesn't mean that you'll be threatened for not agreeing with them. This has been the main thrust of the recent movement.

Gray Beard:

Osanobua, o , wetin be dis? no be una dey ask for definition? Dictionary dey now, try am.

I ain't looking for any definition so i dont need a freagin dictionary. na u dey ask for definition, so plssssssssssssss try a dictionary!

useless time-waster

And here ladies and gentlemen is a classic example of an oxygen waster. I really hope you learn to develop some interpersonal relationships.

Jenwitemi:

Atheists have not yet presented any conclusive evidence to deny the existence of the creator of the physical universe, and they will never be able to, if i may add. And that can irk a lot of atheists, too.

The problems with this is that the creator of the physical universe has not been described in a meaningful sense and if this creator were absent, how can one show that it is absent? Then there is the point that the entire concept of being a creator requires certain features that are physical so how can this creator function?

Jenwitemi:

Of course, you are right there. This is why i originally pointed out that the feeling of rejection is more pronounced in the theists, or more accurately, the religionists of the Abrahamic kind  than the atheists who are not as attached intensely to their ideologies.

Okay.

thehomer:

And here ladies and gentlemen is a classic example of an oxygen waster. I really hope you learn to develop some interpersonal relationships.

Nonsense. if you are looking for definitions, go to the dictionaryt. if you cant do that, then it is YOU who is the waste of time and space, you cretin.

Simple thing - Rhino pointed out that your gospel is that of nothing to something. In other words that what you espouse is the idea that things may come out of nothing. you missed that that was what he was saying. That shows your shallow intellect, and you are here bandying insults and looking for who will play definition games with you. I say again, go to the dictionary! Infantile Clown!

Gray Beard:

Nonsense. if you are looking for definitions, go to the dictionaryt. if you cant do that, then it is YOU who is the waste of time and space, you cretin.

Simple thing - Rhino pointed out that your gospel is that of nothing to something. In other words that what you espouse is the idea that things may come out of nothing. you missed that that was what he was saying. That shows your shallow intellect, and you are here bandying insults and looking for who will play definition games with you. I say again, go to the dictionary! Infantile Clown!

Keep it up. We're just lucky that there are plants helping us reduce the waste you produce. What dictionary defines your God or are you unable to read too?
Anyway, it seems you have very little to contribute since you've pretty much done the best you can.
Good luck to you.

Damn! some people are really full of empty hot air! Yoo got nothing to say, do you? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Now u are asking for which dictionary to use. Is it not plain as day-light, except you are a double headed f.ool and boundless illiterate of Olympian proportions, that since we are writing English, then you should seek an English dictionary.

This just shows and confirms to me just how empty these atheists are. How they twist and turn around meaningless arguments. For crying out loud, he first asks for a definition of God. When referred to a dictionary, he is asking "which dictionary"? Who really has time for such tomfoolery as this? Very soon this nincompoop will ask me what a dictionary is.

Since you are too lazy to find a dictionary, as I am in a good mood, I will find one for you.

Merrian Webster

god noun \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\

Definition of GOD

1. Capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3: a person or thing of supreme value

4: a powerful ruler
See god defined for English-language learners »

See god defined for kids »

The last part of the merrian webster definition has a link to "God defined for kids'. . . . . .maybe that is the one you should look up, as that is what will be okay for your evidently imbecilic and infantile mind. . . . . .,there is also a link for “definition of god for English language learners”. . . you cud try that one since you obviously don’t understand English yet. . . .

Amongst the 4 definitions provided for adults above, pls do not embarrass yourself any further by claiming that you do not know which one applies to a discussion revolving around atheism? ? ? ? ? Because I know that is the next imbecilic thing you will ask!

So you have definitions from a dictionary above now. . . . .it was anyhow an id, iotic question to ask foir the definition, as the definition is common knowledge except for those who wish to waste time arguing for argument sake alone.

Now that you have the definition, punk, what else will you ask me to define? Huh? Shall i define “nairaland” for you? or what a forum is?

Goat.

Gray Beard:

Dey dia dey lie. If you know what Rhino said, then there was notin to be sarcastic about.

The joke was not directed at Rhino in the first place. Like I said before, it was a joke about thehomers and purely thehomers question.

Gray Beard:

FOOOOOLISHNESS on the streets of ashkelon! How on earth does the something and nothing argument lead to a conclusion that the universe never existed? It only leads to a conclusion that sometyhing must have preceded it, where ya brain dey?? Inside ya yansh

The second concusion you have up there is c.rap, because what we know about the big b.ang rebutts that s.hit.

Bros, i norr get ya time.

Are you a nine four year old? There is no need to throw a tantrum on the internet. It is hard enough to understand you with your. . . unique use of the English language.

Anyway, the first conclusion applies to things that do not already exist and would need to come from nothing in order to exist. Such things logically do not exist and never existed if the original premise is true. As I said, the Universe does not fit it. We know the Universe exists.

Gray Beard:

It only leads to a conclusion that sometyhing must have preceded it

You mean like the Universe in another form. That would still technically be the Universe.

Gray Beard:

The second concusion you have up there is c.rap, because what we know about the big b.ang rebutts that s.hit.

The the big ba.ng also relies on the conservation of energy/mass/momentum too. Even it necessitates that energy/mass/momentum already exist in some state prior to the expansion of the Universe. Hence, the Universe in another form.

god noun \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\

Definition of GOD

1. Capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

This definition is completely subjective. If this is what you mean when you say God you will need to elaborate way more. Unless, you believe every human on earth has the same notion of what it means to be perfect in power, wisdom, goodness.

2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

Fine. However, you do realize people believed the Sun to have had more than natural attributes and powers and required human worship.  The same for the moon, the ocean, mountains, volcanoes, lakes, rivers, forest, talking burning bushes and the countless other things. Do you consider all these things Gods?

3: a person or thing of supreme value

Again, this is entirely subjective. You need to elaborate way more than this. My family members are all people I would say have supreme value. Would you consider them Gods?

4: a powerful ruler

This definition is fine but it could be applied to anyone. Any president, king, emperor, dictator, and or despot qualifies as a God under this definition. Is this really what you mean when you say God?

@op

so you are going to heaven and atheists are going to hell right?. You see, what you believe is what makes sense to you. so must the atheist now agree with you as if you dont know you guys are on the opposite sides of the world. why must you expect them to accept your evidence?

Quote from: thehomer on Today at 08:42:32 PM
There is a difference between rejecting something when the evidence and the reasoning behind it has been presented

Idehn:

The joke was not directed at Rhino in the first place. Like I said before, it was a joke about thehomers and purely thehomers question.

Keep lying. It is easier to admit that you goofed. You were both trying to make Rhino look stupid but the joke ended up on you. You both exposed your lack of intelligence, simply in a bid to showcase rabid and unintelligent atheism.

Are you a nine four year old? There is no need to throw a tantrum on the internet. It is hard enough to understand you with your. . . unique use of the English language.

I use that "unique" way of expressing myself when i am trying to make someone see his own stoopidity. Too bad: and you were the one talkinh about sarcasm flying over people's heads. SMH.

Anyway, the first conclusion applies to things that do not already exist and would need to come from nothing in order to exist. Such things logically do not exist and never existed if the original premise is true. As I said, the Universe does not fit it. We know the Universe exists.

Nonsense. Tomorrow you go pretend say you dey use ya head at all.

If the 1st conclusion applies to things that do not exist, and would need to come into existence, then the correct conclusion would be that something else preceded and triggered their existence - since the premise is that something cannot come out of nothing. Therfore they had to emerge from something.

You mean like the Universe in another form. That would still technically be the Universe.

This is very stoopid and illogical because things do not emerge from themselves. So the universe in another form is not what makes the universe. That is simply a question of form. The real question is how the universe (in any form whatsoevr) came to be in the first place. Going by the first conclusion, it follows that something else (external) to itself must have triggered it.

The the big ba.ng also relies on the conservation of energy/mass/momentum too. Even it necessitates that energy/mass/momentum already exist in some state prior to the expansion of the Universe. Hence, the Universe in another form.

If it had always existed in that other form, then what triggered it to change form to this current form. Magic, abi. I tire for una o.

Its like you dont stop to think. What was theer before the universe in its present form? Science says a single dot. If that single dot had existed for all eternity, what and why does it change form? What exactly causes that. In other words what causes the big b.ang.

But the most critical question is what caused that single dot which the universe supposedly came from. Since something cannot come from nothing, what caused it. if you say it has always been there, where is your evidence for that. Also if you say it caused itself then you have run foul of logic. there is nothing that comes from itself.

This definition is completely subjective. If this is what you mean when you say God you will need to elaborate way more. Unless, you believe every human on earth has the same notion of what it means to be perfect in power, wisdom, goodness.

Fine. However, you do realize people believed the Sun to have had more than natural attributes and powers and required human worship. The same for the moon, the ocean, mountains, volcanoes, lakes, rivers, forest, talking burning bushes and the countless other things. Do you consider all these things Gods?
Again, this is entirely subjective. You need to elaborate way more than this. My family members are all people I would say have supreme value. Would you consider them Gods?

This definition is fine but it could be applied to anyone. Any president, king, emperor, dictator, and or despot qualifies as a God under this definition. Is this really what you mean when you say God?

Fooolishness again. If I yab you, you no go gree. Did u not see where i told your atheist freind that you useless people will come again and start asking me which of these definitions is God? ? ? Did I not say that it should be clear which one it is - in the context of an atheistic discussion? ? ? ? ? Is atheism the negation of powerful rulers?Is it the negation of "valuable entities" ? ? ? Of course the definition that is apt ifs the first one! I knew it, i predicted it, that una go talk trash again, and see amm.

Ya brain dey inside ya yansh jaaaare, you no even intelligent, ONE KOBO!

It has long been concluded that Atheism is a religion of propagating the ideology and concept of non-existance of anything God/s.

When you preach your own version of faith to people through deception and manipulation of the existing global view and general understanding that anything must have a maker/s, you end up in thesame train with the religionist.

I found the above statement as cheap and absurd, having been privilladged to co-habitate with a "militant atheist". For me, i think i can settle with "I dont know", which i think is more safer and intellectual honesty. Which will have kicked the word atheist away.

But when you dont know, and yet you spent alot of atime trying to force your own version to the 'indoctrinated' or whatever, then you are equally guilty as charge.

Gray Beard:

Keep lying. It is easier to admit that you goofed. You were both trying to make Rhino look silly but the joke ended up on you.

.
Think whatever you want.

Gray Beard:

I use that "unique" way of expressing myself when i am trying to make someone see his own stoopidity. Too bad: and you were the one talkinh about sarcasm flying over people's heads. SMH.

Please stop then. It is hard enough to understand your tortured English and now you want to add sarcasm to mix. Really the internet must be a horrible place for you.

Gray Beard:

If the 1st conclusion applies to things that do not exist, and would need to come into existence, then the correct conclusion would be that something else preceded and triggered their existence - since the premise is that something cannot come out of nothing. Therfore they had to emerge from something.

Unless that something else, transformed all or part of itself to produce the "new" something, no. What you seem to be suggesting would violate the very premise you are assuming to be true. If something cannot come from nothing, then it would be just as illogical to posit that something else caused something to come from nothing.

Under the premise, if something exist now, it must have always existed prior, even if it was in another form.

Gray Beard:

If it had always existed in that other form, then what triggered it to change form to this current form. Magic, abi. I tire for una o.

I do not know. I do not and cannot know everything. What I do know is that the Universe is very much capable of changing form/states on its own. Every minute you live is a testament to this. I also know that your conclusion does not follow the premise that something cannot come from nothing. What you do not seem to understand is that what you proposing, is in fact magic. Take your own advice, and think for a minute.

Gray Beard:

Its like you dont stop to think. What was theer before the universe in its present form? Science says a single dot. If that single dot had existed for all eternity, what and why does it change form? What exactly causes that. In other words what causes the big b.ang.

But the most critical question is what caused that single dot which the universe supposedly came from. Since something cannot come from nothing, what caused it. if you say it has always been there, where is your evidence for that. Also if you say it caused itself then you have run foul of logic. there is nothing that comes from itself.

Again I do not know the state of the Universe prior to the big b.ang.  All I know is that you are boastfully pushing a logically incoherent proposition, contrary to your initial premises. Are you trying to suggest, that the Universe could not change states prior to the big ba.ng? Even though at every other point in time  following the big b.ang it could? Even when the premises the big ba.ng is based on, the conservation of energy/momentum/mass, required that it do just that?

If you do not like the logical conclusion to the premises/theory, YOU brought to the table, then stop using it. Otherwise, spare me your feckless bravado. It is clearly not helping you be logical.

1) Do you accept that something does not come from nothing?
2) Do you agree with the conservation laws of energy/momentum/mass?
3) Do you agree that these laws are an extension of 1)?
4)Do you agree with the big ba.ng theory?  
5) Do you agree that the Universe is constantly changing form/states?

If the answer is yes to all then, why is it illogical to think that the Universe existed in a different form/state prior to the big ba.ng? Why is it illogical to think that the Universe, existed in a different form prior to that? Why is it illogical to think that it has always existed if only with a different form?

Rhino.5dm:

It has long been concluded that Atheism is a religion of propagating the ideology and concept of non-existance of anything God/s.

When you preach your own version of faith to people through deception and manipulation of the existing global view and general understanding that anything must have a maker/s, you end up in thesame train with the religionist.

I found the above statement as cheap and absurd, having been privilladged to co-habitate with a "militant atheist". For me, i think i can settle with "I dont know", which i think is more safer and intellectual honesty. Which will have kicked the word atheist away.

But when you dont know, and yet you spent alot of atime trying to force your own version to the 'indoctrinated' or whatever, then you are equally guilty as charge.

Rhino.5dm if you honestly think my joke was targeting you, then you have my sincerest apologies. It was not meant for you.

Also I am comfortable saying I do not know something as my previous post shows.

Rhino.5dm:

It has long been concluded that Atheism is a religion of propagating the ideology and concept of non-existance of anything God/s.

Actually, what was concluded is that Atheism is not a religion and couldn't be a religion in a consistent sense of the word.

Rhino.5dm:

When you preach your own version of faith to people through deception and manipulation of the existing global view and general understanding that anything must have a maker/s, you end up in thesame train with the religionist.

Ignoring the fact that religious faith simply doesn't apply to atheism, I wonder how one becomes religious when they point out that there are a lot of things that aren't designed by conscious entities.

Rhino.5dm:

I found the above statement as cheap and absurd, having been privilladged to co-habitate with a "militant atheist". For me, i think i can settle with "I dont know", which i think is more safer and intellectual honesty. Which will have kicked the word atheist away.

That depends on what is not known.

Rhino.5dm:

But when you dont know, and yet you spent alot of atime trying to force your own version to the 'indoctrinated' or whatever, then you are equally guilty as charge.

One must wonder where you find these atheists forcing others unless you think having a discussion means that one is trying to force another person.

[Q.uote]
Actually, what was concluded is that Atheism is not a religion and couldn't be a religion in a consistent sense of the word. [/Q.oute]

what makes you think atheism is not a religion? If it has been shown severally, atheist performing evangelism and winning more souls to their side? Double standard.

[Q.oute]
Ignoring the fact that religious faith simply doesn't apply to atheism, I wonder how one becomes religious when they point out that there are a lot of things that aren't designed by conscious entities. [/Qou.te]

How can you say such? When its obvious atheist apply thesame blind faith when refuting the theist? You dont believe in any deity abi, How?. . .Blind faith without any scientific back ups or empirical relations.


[Qoute]
That depends on what is not known.

One must wonder where you find these atheists forcing others unless you think having a discussion means that one is trying to force another person.
[quote][/Quote]

How do you explain a stunch atheist denying his children the means of going to church and constantly frowning at any mantion of God with a rage of a wounded lion.?

Rhino.5dm:

[Q.uote]
Actually, what was concluded is that Atheism is not a religion and couldn't be a religion in a consistent sense of the word. [/Q.oute]

what makes you think atheism is not a religion? If it has been shown severally, atheist performing evangelism and winning more souls to their side? Double standard.

I don't think you are applying the concept of religion consistently because what you're saying implies that someone who used to be in support of slavery who is convinced based on the civil rights movement that slavery is wrong, then becomes against slavery, is following a religion.

Rhino.5dm:

[Q.oute]
Ignoring the fact that religious faith simply doesn't apply to atheism, I wonder how one becomes religious when they point out that there are a lot of things that aren't designed by conscious entities. [/Qou.te]

How can you say such? When its obvious atheist apply thesame blind faith when refuting the theist? You dont believe in any deity abi, How?. . .Blind faith without any scientific back ups or empirical relations.

Once the deities being spoken of are identified, the decision on whether or not to believe becomes clear. e.g do you believe that Odin is a God? Why or why not?

[quote author=Rhino.5dm link=topic=734568.msg8920163#msg8920163 date=1313325219]
[Qoute]
That depends on what is not known.

One must wonder where you find these atheists forcing others unless you think having a discussion means that one is trying to force another person.

[/Quote]

How do you explain  a stunch atheist denying his children the means of going to church and constantly frowning at any mantion of God with a rage of a wounded lion.?

I would explain that as someone being a poor parent.

@rhino i do not think dogged determination in defending and propagating one's views or stands amounts to religion. It would be ridiculous. Religion is invariably defined and tied with the supernatural. Also, the idea there is god or gods is entirely a religious one. It is backed by their unique means of detecting it/she/he - faith. To me, faith is a surrender of one's rational faculty. Thus the idea of god or gods is not suppose to be reasonable or scientific. The natural world has also proved that a conscious hand need not pile up mountains, or cause earthquakes, or plant, or cause lightning, or affect weather . . . If god is introduced, the cause of his consciousness must be probedis introduced, the cause of his consciousness must be probed

Idehn:


Unless that something else, transformed all or part of itself to produce the "new" something, no. What you seem to be suggesting would violate the very premise you are assuming to be true. If something cannot come from nothing, then it would be just as illogical to posit that something else caused something to come from nothing.

If I yab u now. . . .see as you jus dey display foooolishness compounded with illiteracy. Shame no even catch you sef?

Where I talk say “something else caused something to come from nothing”? ? ? ? ? ?

Abeg just show me where I talk am, otherwise SHARRRRAPPP DIA, IDIOT.

I posited that something cannot derive from nothing, and that remains consistent. That is common logic, which even a kindergarten child can grasp as being sound and true. I did not say that something else caused the universe to come from nothing. Stop foisting lies on me. In actual fact, my belief is that God caused the universe to come into existence from the substance of his being. That is not nothingness, you quadriplegic numbskull.  

Under the premise, if something exist now, it must have always existed prior, even if it was in another form.

Cra.p. You are just an asinine student of illogic. Under the premise, if something exists now, then something else must have preceded and caused it. Finito.

How hard is that for your thick numbskull? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I do not know. I do not and cannot know everything.

Hallelujah. Ergo, you also cannot know for a fact that God does not exist.  

Again I do not know the state of the Universe prior to the big b.ang.

See as fear dey catch you. You be ole, original coward. Why you dey lie. Abi science no talk say na single point be the state of the universe before big b.ang? Ode oshi.

I nor get ya time jaare.  

All I know is that you are boastfully pushing a logically incoherent proposition, contrary to your initial premises. Are you trying to suggest, that the Universe could not change states prior to the big ba.ng? Even though at every other point in time  following the big b.ang it could?

You nor even fear to just dey lie reke reke, up and down the whole place for broad day light. How the universe don change form since the big bang, abeg, tell me. E don turn to egusi soup?

Norr lie jaare. E nefa chage form since big ba.ng at all at all. E just dey expand, simple. That one no be change of form.

Ode oshi.

Useless akata man.

Even when the premises the big ba.ng is based on, the conservation of energy/momentum/mass, required that it do just that?

Wetin cause am, simple. No long tin.

1) Do you accept that something does not come from nothing?

Yes ke,

2) Do you agree with the conservation laws of energy/momentum/mass?

Yes ke,

3) Do you agree that these laws are an extension of 1)?

Yes ke,

4)Do you agree with the big ba.ng theory?

Yes ke,

5) Do you agree that the Universe is constantly changing form/states?

THIS ONE NA CAPITAL LIE: UNIVERSE DEY EXPAND, SIMPLE.

Wetin e don change to?

Cretin.

If the answer is yes to all then, why is it illogical to think that the Universe existed in a different form/state prior to the big ba.ng?

It is not illogical. You are not following.

Why is it illogical to think that the Universe, existed in a different form prior to that?

Single dot na universe? Okay, make we say na universe. Wetin come cause am to change now? Wetin cause the expansion. Be specific. Don’t simply try to escape by vaguely mumbling “energy, mass, etc”. Be specific.

Why is it illogical to think that it has always existed if only with a different form?

1. Single dot na universe?
2. If single dot come turn to universe, wetin cause that change? Ehn? Ehn? Ehn? Magic, abi? Oloshi.
3. If single dot don exist forever, why e no turn to universe before? Why na that particular moment im come turn to univas? Ehn?

Siddon one side, joo, anuofia.

YOU NO INTELLIGENT AT ALL – ONE KOBO!