Looks like knowunknown is coming through to my earlier assertion..

The universe is Mental (God).

I even use this pic.

This is Marduk with the universe as his garments..

Maynman:

Jesus Christ doesn’t exist in judaism, what story line point to what? Stop lying!
How come your lord exist only in forged books?
Christianity is gotten from Chrestianity.
Scriptures means writings, you mean jewish writings?
Yahweh is a mere israelite deity. He even has parents!

How pathetic you mock Christianity because you feel that their scripture was forged

But you are bringing a fact from Wikipedia that can be edited by you

Is that not hypocrisy?

TradingGod:

How pathetic you mock Christianity because you feel that their scripture was forged

But you are bringing a fact from Wikipedia that can be edited by you

Is that not hypocrisy?

How pathetic you base your life on jewish books that have been forged and edited.

Wikipedia has moderators, any illiterate can’t just wake up and edit it.

Why don’t you dispute the fact?
That’s common sense

Maynman:

How pathetic you base your life on jewish books that have been forged and edited.

Wikipedia has moderators, any illiterate can’t just wake up and edit it.

Why don’t you dispute the fact?
That’s common sense

Why you dey lie pass satan

Even satan go fear for this your lie 🤭🤭🤭🤭

TradingGod:



Why you dey lie pass satan

Even satan go fear for this your lie 🤭🤭🤭🤭

Can’t you read?
The “satan” that’s found only in your religion is smarter than this

Maynman:


Can’t you read?
The “satan” that’s found only in your religion is smarter than this

it's open to all and can be modified and edited by anyone.

TradingGod:


it's open to all and can be modified and edited by anyone.

And it has moderators that approve or reject it.
What do you think “Wikipedia” means? What’s the definition?

Maynman:


Can’t you read?
The “satan” that’s found only in your religion is smarter than this

my guy often does not mean always, which means you can change something and no one might know even the moderator might not know it



My guy just admit say you lie,

TradingGod:
my guy often does not mean always, which means you can change something and no one might know even the moderator might not know it



My guy just admit say you lie,

Can you mention just one that was change and moderators didn’t know.
Or can you edit something now and show me, let’s see who is the real liar

My guy just admit sey you dey worship israelite god .

From world history
https://www.worldhistory.org/Yahweh/

Maynman:


Can you mention just one that was change and moderators didn’t know.
Or can you edit something now and show me, let’s see who is the real liar

My guy just admit sey you dey worship israelite god .

From world history
https://www.worldhistory.org/Yahweh/

My gee no want gree say him fvck up

Anyway lets agree to disagree 🙂

TradingGod:


My gee no want gree say him fvck up

Anyway lets agree to disagree 🙂

Since anyone can edit, can you edit something now and show me, let’s see who is the real liar 😉

Maynman:


Since anyone can edit, can you edit something now and show me, let’s see who is the real liar 😉

According to your screenshot, no moderators willl take down the edited text rather another individual which could be you again can modify it to suit your agenda lol





Baba you just dey jonz anyhow for here

TradingGod:


According to your screenshot, no moderators willl take down the edited text rather another individual which could be you again can modify it to suit your agenda lol





Baba you just dey jonz anyhow for here

Since anyone can edit, can you edit something now and show me, let’s see who is the real liar 😉

Maynman:

Since anyone can edit, can you edit something now and show me, let’s see who is the real liar 😉

So I should edit it and show you so that you can run and go edit it back so that you will tell me that it's the moderators



Lol...baba rest...just admit it......you don loseguard for here lol

TradingGod:



So I should edit it and show you so that you can run and go edit it back so that you will tell me that it's the moderators



Lol...baba rest...just admit it......you don loseguard for here lol

Edit it first and screenshot it. That’s common sense.

Maynman:


Edit it first and screenshot it. That’s common sense.

I have nothing to proove to you


Next time don't use Wikipedia as fact because anybody can gain access and edit it to suit their narrative

TradingGod:
I have nothing to proove to you


Next time don't use Wikipedia as fact because anybody can gain access and edit it to suit their narrative

You can’t prove anything because you are a liar.

Anybody can edit a narrative, edit one and let’s see na

https://www.worldhistory.org/Yahweh/

Maynman:


You can’t prove anything because you are a liar.

Anybody can edit a narrative, edit one and let’s see na

https://www.worldhistory.org/Yahweh/

guy rest

Even your 'holy grail' source uses the bible as it own source lol

TradingGod:
guy rest

Even your 'holy grail' source uses the bible as it own source lol

Post the Wikipedia link of this page.
Hope you not lying because of yahweh?

https://www.worldhistory.org/Yahweh/

Maynman:

Post the Wikipedia link of this page.
Hope you not lying because of yahweh?

https://www.worldhistory.org/Yahweh/

This is your worldhistory link that uses the bible as it reference



Stop confusing yourself

TradingGod:



This is your worldhistory link that uses the bible as it reference



Stop confusing yourself

Where did it use it as reference? Can you read?

TradingGod:



This is your worldhistory link that uses the bible as it reference



Stop confusing yourself

It didn’t, it explained how yahweh was portrayed in the jewish bible called tanakh.

Stop lying to yourself

Maynman:

Where did it use it as reference? Can you read?

you don't know the meaning of reference?

TradingGod:
you don't know the meaning of reference?

You should ask yourself that.

The paragraph you are reading is talking about how “yahweh was potrayed in the jewish bible” called tanakh.

KnownUnknown:


The CAUSES of day and night are the the rotation of the earth on its axis, the eccentricity of the earths orbit around the sun and the obliquiity of the earth contribute to the length of daylight, the composition of the atmosphere that gives the earth its hue and blocks out other stars, and photons from the sun.

I am mildly surprised if you think you have said anything of import here.

That infinite regress is your problem actually because there is no need to regress. The universe itself could be uncaused and the infinite regress problem is for people who want to arbitrarily terminate the regress at the notion of god. Their particular god. There is this particular Jew in my neck of the woods who uses the same “there can be no infinite regress” argument except he terminates the regress at the Hebrew god. Oh, what a surprise!!

The universe could not be uncaused, because for the umpteenth time, nothing physical can be uncaused: to be without cause is to be self existent in a way that is fundamental and does not require trigger, change, cessation, collapse, regeneration or indeed any other factor of a material thing.

Your allusions to "a particular god" are quite tiresome please, as you well know I allude to none, save a necessary founding existential principle, which of course, you may call what you wish, so long as you do not do so simply for light mockery targeted at distraction.

The problem with your “self existent” things is that there is none you can point to. If “self existence” means independent function and existence then the universe fits the bill. If it means something different, give an example other than saying it’s “intangible and immutable”, which describes NOTHING.

This is odd, especially when I specifically pointed to infinite time and infinite space as self existent things.

This analogy does not make sense.

This statement makes me lose substantial hope in the possibility of having a useful conversation. Its quite a simple enough analogy, if you go back to the question it was given in response to. It simply says, yes, much may exist outside what we know or where we live. How is that a problem?

I have no reason to think this reality is likely a simulation. I mean, what is it simulating?

Fair enough. We can leave that as a subject for another day. I will only hint that there are clear signs even within physical matter that we may well be dwelling within a sophisticated hologram. But this is neither here nor there for the subject at hand, so some other time.

Its unfounded when you mean to create an argument for god. When astronomical discussions about what is beyond the universe occur, astronomers are careful to call the multiverse an hypothesis and try to support it with the scientific method not arbitrary speculation.
The expansion of the universe doesn’t mean that it is expanding into a container (that you call “real time”) but that spacetime itself is expanding. However, I understand what you mean because colloquially expansion requires space. But this “expansion” is different than what we are used to. Since we are just second hand users of this knowledge, let’s try to get an explanation from the people who brought it to our attention.

I am sorry but the expansion of the universe is a real thing and the standard scientific answer which attempts to escape the question as to what the universe is expanding into is nothing but cheap and escapist. They simply say that its expanding in itself and not necessarily into anything! With respect, thats pure bunkum. Voodoo at its worst. You guys accuse religious people of believing in voodoo and then come up with worse voodoo. Even with the standard balloon model (where space is being created in an inflating balloon - such a balloon will still get bigger and bigger and must occupy more space within the spectrum it occupies. Anything less is pure voodoo and attempts to suggest that the balloon is not occupying any space anywhere but is existing in pixieland and expanding into Alice's wonderland. Nothing could be more unscientific.

This is not just a matter of the colloquial meaning of the word "expand" - because the universe is in fact physically and evidentially expanding. Galaxies are speeding away from one another at a speed greater than the speed of light. Indeed for this exact reason the future universe will be darker as light will not be able the cross the chasms created. This is not something to gloss over with cheap pseudo science such as claiming that the only space being created is within the universe. The balloon model - which is what they use - is enough to tell you that even a balloon which is being inflated will need space outside it in order to inflate.

And if you don't see how that ties into what I am saying, that is mildly disappointing. I left off the same subject with Maynman because I felt that we had hardly interacted and as such we may not understand one another, but you, I expect to understand what I am saying (even if you disagree with it - at the minimum you should understand it). I will go over it briefly again:

The whole question arises from the cosmological question of the origin of the universe - It is said, for example, by current scientific models that time and space were "created" at the moment of the big bang. The truth is that this is impossible - rather, the words being used as time and space there really refer to something else entirely. What is being called time there is a dimension of motion and not real time, and what is being called space there is the material of this physical universe, not real space. Both real time and real space are intangible and incapable of being either created or destroyed, or even changed. Neither can "commence" at any point or "cease" at any point, or have a "border" or a "limit" in the way that is said of spacetime as described by scientists. Neither is a "fabric" of any kind, however loosely or metaphorically one may in an escapist manner try to suggest that word is used.

And there are grounds for asserting these:

1. If the big bang occurred it, was an event. An event cannot occur without a pre existing timeline. It can only occur within already existing time. Thus it is paradoxical to say that time was created at the moment of the big bang as scientists currently say.

2. In the same wise, the big bang was an expansion from a point, bro, you can't escape the question of what the substance of that point was expanding into. It is a simple and logical question which should not be fobbed off with pseudo scientific escapisms. .

Both of these factors lend us to know that there clearly exists a timeline beyond this universe and space beyond this universe - which is what I refer to as infinite/ real space and time - those intangible factors into which events and things are interpolated - and which are self-existent by reference to their fundamental existential nature.

Those are the factors which I say form a part of this principle of self-existence and you are free to make a caricature of it as you wish, and call it "god" or "Yahweh" - that is your business, for I am speaking at a philosophical level and I simply call it the self existent source.

LordReed:


Of course I accept that the universe is expanding, what I don't accept is that it is expanding into another "space". The scientific explanation is a bit confusing to me so I can't really say I accept it but what I do know is it is beyond investigation at this point so yeah you can choose to speculate on its nature but my methodological naturalist brain cannot give credence to something that has no substantive backing.

Pls see my post to KnownUnknown above where I touch some more on this matter of expansion.

MaxInDHouse:
Nah wa ọ!
So worshipers of SCIENCE can't even agree on the definition of their god!

… and Lord MadMax turns up and talks gibbr, as usual

jaephoenix:

… and Lord MadMax turns up and talks gibbr, as usual

I dey tell you. Babanla gibberish.

TradingGod:



JESUS IS LORD
THE LORD IS YAHWEH


the same LORD that spoke to Abraham, Moses and David is the same LORD that came down as Jesus Christ

I think its a theist thing to misunderstand questions and quote a preconditioned gibberish which has been memorized. How is your answer pertaining to his question?

TradingGod:
He is not the isrealite God, He is the God of the universe

He chooses the isrealite because of Abraham their father that believed in Him over millions of people on earth that did not believe in Him


Him sticking with the isrealites even when the isrealites turn their back on Him is because of the Covenant He made with their Father Abraham

If noticed, all his showmanship, miracles and other bullshit was concentrated in a tiny region of the middle east, which isn't up to 1/100 of the entire world. So now can infer he's an Israelite sky daddy

TradingGod:


Lol

The reason Christians learn from Judiasm is because Jesus Christ keep picking up scripture from there to teach His message Here on earth


And the storyline of Judiasm point to the death and resurrection of Christ


Now Christianity is living a new life given to you by Jesus Christ when you surrendered your life to Him and pledged your Loyalty to HIM alone.

Now Christianity is not a religion but a new lifestyle or mindset or orientation
But Christianity has a religion and that religion is called LOVE

unfortunately many Christians don't practice LOVE as a religion

Now Judaism as a religion doesn't believe in the deification or resurrection of Jesus. In fact they call him a false prophet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_view_of_Jesus

DeepSight:



I am sorry but the expansion of the universe is a real thing

How do you know this?
Please don’t say it’s the same astronomers you are accusing of voodoo.

DeepSight:

They simply say that it’s expanding in itself and not necessarily into anything! With respect, thats pure bunkum. Voodoo at its worst. You guys accuse religious people of believing in voodoo and then come up with worse voodoo

Oh yeah? Maybe the expansion is voodoo too and the universe unfolds in what you refer to as “real time” and “infinite space”.

As for the rest of what you wrote and your position; they are just unfounded claims.

Your claim goes that there has to be a “cause” that is “necessary” and not contingent. This cause can’t be the universe itself because it is “physical” and therefore mutable.

You claim that physical things can’t “self exist” because they change so your cause is “intangible” and “immutable”.

So your god is a necessary cause of the universe and it is intangible and immutable.

I mean, there is nothing there that isn’t the same old religious argument.

If asked why it is necessary, the answer is that it is necessary for your position. You will claim it is the “philosophy of necessary and contingent things” but if asked for an example of a necessary thing apart from your god, you will draw a blank.

It is intangible because it can’t be physical.

But I wonder, how does it cause anything if it’s immutable.

Yea, I wrote god because a deity is exactly what you are talking about despite calling it anything but.


McMickie is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial………but he is mutable, so he probably caused the multiverse. Mutability is his nature and that’s probably why he gave this attribute to the universe and all other realities. I call him he but that doesn’t mean she has a gender, just calling her that for convenience. He is also not a deity.