LOL...They talk about Science! Some of them don't even know what Science is They think copying scientific articles online without understanding it and pasting all over Nairaland makes them scientists LOL

Now I understand why atheism is growing fast on Nairaland A lot of ignorant folks being fed with lies and they think it's intelligence, hence, God doesn't exist! Smh....

doubleDx:
LOL...They talk about Science! Some of them don't even know what Science is They think copying scientific articles online without understanding it and pasting all over Nairaland makes them scientists LOL

Now I understand why atheism is growing fast on Nairaland A lot of ignorant folks being fed with lies and they think it's intelligence, hence, God doesn't exist! Smh....

all they do is ask you to proof there is God... and tell you the Muslim god might be the real one or thor might be the real god... I don't care which is the right one I believe in God based on faith... let them scientist or atheists explain where energy comes from... how it was created

You guys will never learn.

Who said atheists belief in big bang theory? Do u know the meaning of atheism? Are atheists scientists?

Atheists don't believe in the existence of any God. They never said they believe in big bang theory. They don't know how the world came about and the existence of God makes no sense to them.

Besides the big bang is on going research... Its not a dogmatic believe, facts could change tomorrow from further discoveries.

However its good you are asking questions perhaps it could lead to further research and discoveries, however, I wish you asked these questions befor coming into conclusion about ur god.

When it comes to ur believe you don't ask questions, u just believe by faith but when it comes to big bang theory you ask questions. What does that make you?

frank317:
You guys will never learn.

Who said atheists belief in big bang theory? Do u know the meaning of atheism? Are atheists scientists?

Atheists don't believe in the existence of any God. They never said they believe in big bang theory. They don't know how the world came about and the existence of God makes no sense to them.

Besides the big bang is on going research... Its not a dogmatic believe, facts could change tomorrow from further discoveries.

However its good you are asking questions perhaps it could lead to further research and discoveries, however, I wish you asked these questions befor coming into conclusion about ur god.

When it comes to ur believe you don't ask questions, u just believe by faith but when it comes to big bang theory you ask questions. What does that make you?

faith is explained,
science is explained...
atheists believed time and space started at a given point... but they don't know right?
some say it is big bang which is what they belief...
but let me ask you! how can you say or proof it is not God when you say you don't know how?
not that am saying it is god for the benefit of this debate but do you have any grounds to say it is not God when you have no clue?

Op.

The first fallacy you committed was to assume all atheists subscribe to the big bang theory.

FYI, not all atheists are science-inclined. There are a good number of atheists, agnostics e.t.c who have not much knowledge of science. Some arrived at irreligion out of sheer curiosity and thirst to know the truth and live by it; some due to glaring absurdities, inconsistencies and fallacies being propagated by religion.

Heck, there are many irreligious people who are okay with the simple answer "I don't know" unlike religion which claims to have monopoly of knowledge.

benalvino1:


faith is explained,
science is explained...
atheists believed time and space started at a given point... but they don't know right?
some say it is big bang which is what they belief...
but let me ask you! how can you say or proof it is not God when you say you don't know how?
not that am saying it is god for the benefit of this debate but do you have any grounds to say it is not God when you have no clue?

Well, it is not God until I know its God.

I don't need to prove its is not God. The fact is that I don't know if its God that created d world. If it is God that created the world then I will know.

Besides what's will proofing its do for me? If its or really God and he chose to leave the world in a state that some sect of people could doubt his existence, how is that my fault?

How will knowing its God or big band put garri on my table.

U are not even sure its God that's why you believe by faith. I chose not to believe by faith.

The fact is both of us don't know how the world came about, the difference is u chose to believe its God by faith, and label me foolish for not by believing by faith.
Not only that, u also threaten me with ever lasting hell for not having faith.

If God exist let him prove himself to me, until then...i don't believe he does. As for believing by faith... I will pass. I am not ready for such stupidity.

Ograke:
Op.
The first fallacy you committed was to assume all atheists subscribe to the big bang theory.
FYI, not all atheists are science-inclined. There are a good number of atheists, agnostics e.t.c who have not much knowledge of science. Some arrived at irreligion out of sheer curiosity and thirst to know the truth and live by it; some due to glaring absurdities, inconsistencies and fallacies being propagated by religion.

***CHEERS***

benalvino1:


faith is explained,
science is explained...
atheists believed time and space started at a given point... but they don't know right?
some say it is big bang which is what they belief...
but let me ask you! how can you say or proof it is not God when you say you don't know how?
not that am saying it is god for the benefit of this debate but do you have any grounds to say it is not God when you have no clue?

No. Atheists believe that personal Gods are imaginary and do not exist. That's what makes someone an atheist. Seeking to understand the origin of the universe is a personal quest, uncoupled from the belief in personal, book publishing Gods.

benalvino1:
The atheist points out the principle of the conservation of energy: that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but only change forms (it can equally be said that “matter can be neither created nor destroyed…”).

Actually it's not atheists that gave the principle,so your totally wrong there...

using the conservation of energy to argue against the beginning of the universe reveals confusion about cosmology to begin with. Scientists can extrapolate back to the beginning of the big bang–which is the moment when both space and time came into existence, along with all of the material world.

This reveals your "knowledge" of the theory you are attacking vehemently

So we know scientifically that there was a moment when there was no matter at all.

It's either you are kingebukasblog or wildly misinformed....at no point in the big bang theory was there ever a "nothing" in it's classical sense....all it says is the universe is a result of an expanding primordial universe of which resided in an extremely small and dense state(singularity state)...

It was created, not out of other matter, but out of nothing. Here is the key to note: it is once the universe came into existence that the laws of nature came into effect–before the universe, there was nothing.

This is the problem with using simple language to describe complex theories to lay people....the creation of the universe is often linked to the big bang because all the current matter and energy are a result of the expansion of the universe from its prior state(singularity)...
And you are contradicting yourself here,how can you accept that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed and think there was ever a time when "nothing" was the state of existence?

So if we use the conservation of energy... how did the matter that causes the big bang come in to existence?

It's plainly obvious you know nothing about the big bang from that question....I reckon you even think it's an explosion in space....
If matter is the condensed form of energy and did not exist till a substantial amount after the big bang....then how is matter the cause of the initial expansion?...

How come we as human beings are so well constructed along with animals? Why when we are being formed from which ever bacteria you chose we are formed in male and female?

male and female,hemophrodite,etc everything that you see,you believe it works therefore a magical being/beings of even more infinite complexity wished them into existence right?
The fact that 9/10 of all species are extinct and you as the 1/10 that is alive today,is looking at the still 1/10 that is alive and touting that you are somehow special to have been in existence otherwise how did the random string of events and faulty adaptive behaviours that prompted the 9/10 of all species to be extinct grant your survival right?

What kind of chance made us humans? With our eyes, legs, brain, heart, liver, or are they a wonderful construction of a supernatural being?

Your dichotomy is that either everything in motion is the result of intelligence or random chance....that even the wilting of leaves were wished into its state otherwise how could the naturalistic factors play out right?
The fallacy you've made is merely an argument from ignorance....that you don't know how the universe came into being nor the life you see today...therefore everyone should accept your conclusion that a magical being did it....sorry but until you can actually justify that with objective evidence i can't take it seriously...
And the really ridiculous thing here is that you opened a thread about "atheists and their stupidity" but somehow ended up being the stupi.d one..

If you indeed want to ask or learn anything about the theory you are attacking you can ask freely...though i am not an astrophysicist I can cite you to explanations that you can easily understand..

Ograke:
Op.

The first fallacy you committed was to assume all atheists subscribe to the big bang theory.

FYI, not all atheists are science-inclined. There are a good number of atheists, agnostics e.t.c who have not much knowledge of science. Some arrived at irreligion out of sheer curiosity and thirst to know the truth and live by it; some due to glaring absurdities, inconsistencies and fallacies being propagated by religion.

Heck, there are many irreligious people who are okay with the simple answer "I don't know" unlike religion which claims to have monopoly of knowledge.

what do you subscribe to? if you have no explanation or evidence or theory why claim others are wrong?

frank317:


Well, it is not God until I know its God.

I don't need to prove its is not God. The fact is that I don't know if its God that created d world. If it is God that created the world then I will know.

Besides what's will proofing its do for me? If its or really God and he chose to leave the world in a state that some sect of people could doubt his existence, how is that my fault?

How will knowing its God or big band put garri on my table.

U are not even sure its God that's why you believe by faith. I chose not to believe by faith.

The fact is both of us don't know how the world came about, the difference is u chose to believe its God by faith, and label me foolish for not by believing by faith.
Not only that, u also threaten me with ever lasting hell for not having faith.

If God exist let him prove himself to me, until then...i don't believe he does. As for believing by faith... I will pass. I am not ready for such stupidity.

who is blaming you? if god gave us freewill so how is it a problem?
I said I know and God made us all...
you said you don't know... good for you but don't speak for me.

davien:
Actually it's not atheists that gave the principle,so your totally wrong there...
This reveals your "knowledge" of the theory you are attacking vehemently
It's either you are kingebukasblog or wildly misinformed....at no point in the big bang theory was there ever a "nothing" in it's classical sense....all it says is the universe is a result of an expanding primordial universe of which resided in an extremely small and dense state(singularity state)...
This is the problem with using simple language to describe complex theories to lay people....the creation of the universe is often linked to the big bang because all the current matter and energy are a result of the expansion of the universe from its prior state(singularity)...
And you are contradicting yourself here,how can you accept that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed and think there was ever a time when "nothing" was the state of existence?
It's plainly obvious you know nothing about the big bang from that question....I reckon you even think it's an explosion in space....
If matter is the condensed form of energy and did not exist till a substantial amount after the big bang....then how is matter the cause of the initial expansion?...
male and female,hemophrodite,etc everything that you see,you believe it works therefore a magical being/beings of even more infinite complexity wished them into existence right?
The fact that 9/10 of all species are extinct and you as the 1/10 that is alive today,is looking at the still 1/10 that is alive and touting that you are somehow special to have been in existence otherwise how did the random string of events and faulty adaptive behaviours that prompted the 9/10 of all species to be extinct granted your survival right?
Your dichotomy is that either everything in motion is the result of intelligence or random chance....that even the wilting of leaves were wished into its state otherwise how could the naturalistic factors play out right?
The fallacy you've made is merely an argument from ignorance....that you don't know how the universe came into being nor the life you see today...therefore everyone should accept your conclusion that a magical being did it....sorry but until you can actually justify that with objective evidence i can't take it seriously...
And the really ridiculous thing here is that you opened a thread about "atheists and their stupidity" but somehow ended up being the stupi.d one..

If you indeed want to ask or learn anything about the theory you are attacking you can ask freely...though i am not an astrophysicist I can cite you to explanations that you can easily understand..

since when did point out become gave?
when did I say atheists gave the conservation of energy?

you say at no point that the big bang theory there was never a nothing... then I ask you again the conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed!! how did the matter come about? Newton laws of motion a body with remain at rest unless a force act upon it... where did the force come from?

and you think you are debunking me.

this guy don't even understand what he is replying to.

Newton's second law

Objects at rest remain that way unless acted upon by a force. In this case: The atoms of the universe. Gases expand naturally, but with forces. There has to be a force that set the expansion for the big bang.

Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of a closed system is constant. Thermodynamics laws apply to all closed systems. The second law states that entropy of a closed system always increases. This means that eventually, the universe will flatten out to an omega state, when the entropy reaches maximum. The universe will then either return to timelessness, or bounce back causing another big bang. What has an end must have a beginning.

The law of causality

Every effect must have a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore there must be a cause to it.

Cell theory

All cells can only come from preexisting cells through division. A cell cannot come about by other processes like Abiogenesis (according to cell theory).
NOTE: Abiogenesis is NOT a theory. It's a set of hypotheses.

The law of conservation of energy

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but is conserved and changes form. However, the energy in the universe must have come from somewhere according to the law of causality.

benalvino1:


since when did point out become gave?
when did I say atheists gave the conservation of energy?

The case I made was that atheists did not give the principle...so why are you relating it as though they did?

you say at no point that the big bang theory there was never a nothing... then I ask you again the conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed!! how did the matter come about?

Sherlock if energy is eternal and from mass-energy equivalence principles we can derive matter from energy then what exactly are you talking about?

Newton laws of motion a body with remain at rest unless a force act upon it

In spite of your lack of phrasing and elementary knowledge of principles you miss the entirety of what is being discussed...can the universe be said to be a body in motion? I doubt you understand that newtons laws of motion applies to objects which are single point masses or perhaps you slept over that class in secondary school...

and you think you are debunking me.

I'll say this and I'll say it again,I hardly try to debunk anyone...arguments like this are just too simplistic and ignorance driven that anyone could expose it

this guy don't even understand what he is replying to.

Says the one that applies a conditioned principle on a universal scale...

davien:
The case I made was that atheists did not give the principle...so why are you relating it as though they did?
Sherlock if energy is eternal and from mass-energy equivalence principles we can derive matter from energy then what exactly are you talking about?
In spite of your lack of phrasing and elementary knowledge of principles you miss the entirety of what is being discussed...can the universe be said to be a body in motion? I doubt you understand that newtons laws of motion applies objects which are single point masses or perhaps you slept over that class in secondary school...
I'll say this and I'll say it again,I hardly try to debunk anyone...arguments like this are just too simplistic and ignorance driven that anyone could expose iy
Says the one that applies a conditioned principle on a universal scale...

yeah they didn't but they use it.
or some use it.

dude the universe is expanding according to science... the universe contains body of masses in it then it self has a mass
or go to the periodic table or logic every matter atom has a mass.

atom does have mass. its a structure made of electrons, protons, neutrons, and any more atomic materials, every one of them do have mass

all these are object with single point masses from smallest to largest
for example mass of a Hydrogen atom is 1.00794 amu
this is the lightest of all known atoms.
a hydrogen atom is actually 1 proton (1.0073 amu) + 1 electron (0.00055) + 0 neutron (1.008665),
and 1 amu (atomic mass unit) = 1.66053886 × 10^-27 kilograms

the sun is the biggest in our solar system

benalvino1:


yeah they didn't but they use it.
or some use it.

dude the universe is expanding according to science... the universe contains body of masses in it then it self has a mass
or go to the periodic table or logic every matter atom has a mass.

atom does have mass. its a structure made of electrons, protons, neutrons, and any more atomic materials, every one of them do have mass

all these are object with single point masses from smallest to largest
for example mass of a Hydrogen atom is 1.00794 amu
this is the lightest of all known atoms.
a hydrogen atom is actually 1 proton (1.0073 amu) + 1 electron (0.00055) + 0 neutron (1.008665),
and 1 amu (atomic mass unit) = 1.66053886 × 10^-27 kilograms

the sun is the biggest in our solar system

Lol! This is epic,I can't believe you are arguing that the universe is by definition a single point mass....do you even grasp what that means?...

davien:
Lol! This is epic,I can't believe you are arguing that the universe is by definition a single point mass....do you even grasp what that means?...

what is the universe
The Universe is all of spacetime and everything that exists therein, including all planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy

keyword is therein... its like a container... if object in it have mass then the mass of the universe is in addition to the mass of those objects.

your house is a single thing from outside which contains multiple things inside...
\again common sense! anything that contains matter has a mass

benalvino1:




the sun is the biggest in our solar system

Really? We should offer you a Rhodes Scholarship.

Weah96:


Really? We should offer you a Rhodes Scholarship.

what's bigger than the sun in our solar system? or you don't know what solar system is

benalvino1:


what is the universe
The Universe is all of spacetime and everything that exists therein, including all planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy

keyword is therein... its like a container... if object in it have mass then the mass of the universe is in addition to the mass of those objects.

your house is a single thing from outside which contains multiple things inside...
\again common sense! anything that contains matter has a mass

Dude you are running away from the question here...how is the universe a single point mass if you believe it(the universe collectively) follows Newton's second law?
I'll make it easy for you,objects in the universe do...now is the universe itself in accordance?

davien:
Dude you are running away from the question here...how is the universe a single point mass if you believe it(the universe collectively) follows Newton's second law?
I'll make it easy for you,objects in the universe do...now is the universe itself in accordance?

science says universe is expanding that is motion.. my point on laws of motion is what force caused matter that doesn't exist to collide according to all the laws I have stated?

benalvino1:


what's bigger than the sun in our solar system? or you don't know what solar system is

They say ignorance is bliss and I agree. Good luck to you in life my brother. You're OK with me.

Weah96:


They say ignorance is bliss and I agree. Good luck to you in life my brother. You're OK with me.

lmao... so you don't know what solar system is? hahaha and you say ignorance is bliss to me

benalvino1:


science says universe is expanding that is motion.. my point on laws of motion is what force caused matter that doesn't exist to collide according to all the laws I have stated?

What exactly are you talking about?...precisely ask your questions clearly

davien:
What exactly are you talking about?...precisely ask your questions clearly

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe.[1] The model postulates that at some moment all of space was contained in a single point from which the universe has been expanding ever since

this is why I use
Newton's second law

Objects at rest remain that way unless acted upon by a force. In this case: The atoms of the universe. Gases expand naturally, but with forces. There has to be a force that set the expansion for the big bang. what is it?

Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of a closed system is constant. Thermodynamics laws apply to all closed systems. The second law states that entropy of a closed system always increases. This means that eventually, the universe will flatten out to an omega state, when the entropy reaches maximum. The universe will then either return to timelessness, or bounce back causing another big bang. What has an end must have a beginning.

The law of causality

Every effect must have a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore there must be a cause to it.

Cell theory

All cells can only come from preexisting cells through division. A cell cannot come about by other processes like Abiogenesis (according to cell theory).
NOTE: Abiogenesis is NOT a theory. It's a set of hypotheses.

The law of conservation of energy

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but is conserved and changes form. However, the energy in the universe must have come from somewhere according to the law of causality. but from where?

benalvino1:


The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe.[1] The model postulates that at some moment all of space was contained in a single point from which the universe has been expanding ever since

this is why I use
Newton's second law

Objects at rest remain that way unless acted upon by a force. In this case: The atoms of the universe. Gases expand naturally, but with forces. There has to be a force that set the expansion for the big bang. what is it?

Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of a closed system is constant. Thermodynamics laws apply to all closed systems. The second law states that entropy of a closed system always increases. This means that eventually, the universe will flatten out to an omega state, when the entropy reaches maximum. The universe will then either return to timelessness, or bounce back causing another big bang. What has an end must have a beginning.

The law of causality

Every effect must have a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore there must be a cause to it.

Cell theory

All cells can only come from preexisting cells through division. A cell cannot come about by other processes like Abiogenesis (according to cell theory).
NOTE: Abiogenesis is NOT a theory. It's a set of hypotheses.

The law of conservation of energy

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but is conserved and changes form. However, the energy in the universe must have come from somewhere according to the law of causality. but from where?

And I told you that newtons second law of motion applies to single point mass bodies....the universe is not a single point mass body...because it has no centre of gravity...you know next to nothing about the principle if you think it applies to the universe..

And the law of thermodynamics will eventually bring the universe to heat death not bounce it back again...and the recent discovery of the universe being flat means it will expand forever(albeit getting slower) and eventually no feasible structure can be obtained due to its expansion...

The law of cause and effect is not applicable universally....quantum physics has demonstrated this with virtual particles and products of quantum fluctuations at minute scales and hence the universe was traced back to a size the billionth of a proton..

And what does cell theory have to do with the big bang? pick a topic and lets discuss...although your posts reek of being a copy-paste job.
Again if energy cannot be created or destroyed...does a question like where does energy come from intellectually sound when everything is virtually a form or consequence of energy?

benalvino1:


who is blaming you? if god gave us freewill so how is it a problem?
I said I know and God made us all...
you said you don't know... good for you but don't speak for me.

Please if God created the world, who created God? Another higher God?

asala1:


Please if God created the world, who created God? Another higher God?

That's not the issue
Open a thread for that

Op,face it,you 've just defeated the purpose for religion with the topic of your thread 'STUPIDITY' Now,If the doctrine of your God permits you to call an atheist like me stupid then your God isn't worth serving because atheist like me takes morality a top priority and prior to that I'm conscious of badmouthing people inorderwords,Atheist don't do God,We do Good so who's seems stupid now?

Hjf

benalvino1:


am calling people names? where? you and lies...

dude I claim there is God yes I don't or I can't prove it!
I don't care who is the correct god

the question is there and answer it, show me proof of big bang
show me proof of evolution
stop diverting

that is not the issue here... we from time says our belief is based on faith so I don't have to tell you anything...

you said yours is based of scientific facts so you tell me.

I have used conservation of energy I haven't even entered Newton laws of motion...
if everything continues to remain at rest... what force that is applied to the atom that made them move and collide?

You conceded that you have no proof of God. This is important despite your claim that your belief is based on faith. Faith is not a choice though. You can't see white and say it is black because you have faith it is so.

Your denial of being abusive does not make sense. The caption of your thread belies the denial!
You should care about which God is real because your belief is mostly based on fear of eternal damnation. If you choose the wrong God assuming there is any God, you will face this damnation. Therefore saying that you don't care which is the real God is asinine.

It seems to me that no meaningful distinction exists between getting the God wrong but believing in something and getting the God wrong but not believing in anything.

I personally do not care about the physics or chemistry of the formation of the world, all I know is that there is no evidence of God.

benalvino1:


who is blaming you? if god gave us freewill so how is it a problem?
I said I know and God made us all...
you said you don't know... good for you but don't speak for me.

Good now I think you have gotten my drift... I I won't get to hia unreasonable question from you again.

sufido123:
Hjf

You conceded that you have no proof of God. This is important despite your claim that your belief is based on faith. Faith is not a choice though. You can't see white and say it is black because you have faith it is so.

Your denial of being abusive does not make sense. The caption of your thread belies the denial!
You should care about which God is real because your belief is mostly based on fear of eternal damnation. If you choose the wrong God assuming there is any God, you will face this damnation. Therefore saying that you don't care which is the real God is asinine.

It seems to me that no meaningful distinction exists between getting the God wrong but believing in something and getting the God wrong but not believing in anything.

I personally do not care about the physics or chemistry of the formation of the world, all I know is that there is no evidence of God.

Faith don't work with proof... the creation of earth in the bible and the God that create humans documented in the bible is what I believe... I don't use Hubble telescope to start talking crap.

This thread is not about me proving anything but about atheists who base their beliefs on backs to back up the creation of the universe with facts