I thought this would be a good joke. It certainly made me laugh. Hahaha

God vs Science

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely.'

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say t here's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help
Him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.' 'So you're good, !' 'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er, yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

' Yes.

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that.

There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.' 'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer. 'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'

'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be fl awed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains, 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?' 'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'
The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.

HA

YOUR god IS NON-EXISTENT.

Martian:

HA

YOUR god IS NON-EXISTENT.

hahaha ur waaaaay too cute

interesting one pal!

The bibleGod decleard that he created evil go and read your bibles.

bindex:

The bibleGod decleard that he created evil go and read your bibles.

Awww look at you so desperately wishing it were in there. Awwww you're cute too. hahaha

There is no conflict between God and science. The various displines of science are trying to fathom how the material creations of God work. Science is trying to understand the will of God as it manifests in what is often refered to as scientific laws or natural laws. Even when a scientist is engrossed with understanding the natural laws and consiciously or uncounciously refuses to acknowledge the origin of the natural laws, that is studying the natural laws but not the power that created, activates and maintains the natural laws, it still does not put him in conflict with the creator.  The worst case scenario is that the scientist and his science are concerned with the effect of the natural laws, the manifestation of the natural laws but not with the causaulity of the natural laws. I am of the view that if such a scientist continues to prope the manifestation of the natural laws, he will have the opportunity to sense the power that created, maintains and activates the natural laws. Wheather or not he acknowleges the power and call it God is his or her choice.

Science however has conflict with religion expecially when religious teachings make pronouncment on how nature works and such pronouncements are later refuted by  multiple and atimes overwhelming scientific evidence. When religious teachings are contradicted by science, it is simply an evidence that the people who originally propounded such religious truths are not God and thus have limited awarenes of the past, the present and the future.

well said m_nwankwo

The problem really arises when certain scientists try to make science the god. Or when atheists want to use science to refute God. as if science can refute God.

As per the religion. the problem there arises when people are unable to interpret properly what the said scriptures states. When I tell atheists the interpretations of Genesis and what the author is trying to say, they get angry because they see it's logical and then result to saying "you ppl want your scripture to be logical when it isn't, you're changing it"

How does one react to that? I just leave them alone, but they like trouble too much

m_nwankwo:

Science however has conflict with religion expecially when religious teachings make pronouncment on how nature works and such pronouncements are later refuted by  multiple and atimes overwhelming scientific evidence. When religious teachings are contradicted by science, it is simply an evidence that the people who originally propounded such religious truths are not God and thus have limited awarenes of the past, the present and the future.

I thought those people that wrote all the stories in the holy books were inspired by the various Gods they are promoting? Will the Gods tell people to write things that are clearly wrong or not true? Example all men decended from Adam or that differences in languages began during the tower of bable story?

~Lady~:

well said m_nwankwo

The problem really arises when certain scientists try to make science the god. Or when atheists want to use science to refute God. as if science can refute God.

As per the religion. the problem there arises when people are unable to interpret properly what the said scriptures states. When I tell atheists the interpretations of Genesis and what the author is trying to say, they get angry because they see it's logical and then result to saying "you ppl want your scripture to be logical when it isn't, you're changing it"

How does one react to that? I just leave them alone, but they like trouble too much

Lady pls let me engage you and lets discuss genesis. I will listen to you with an open mind do you agree?

bindex:

Lady pls let me engage you and lets discuss genesis. I will listen to you with an open mind do you agree?

As long as you're being truthful and respectful, I have no problem with it. And you don't make claims that you can't back up. We make claims and you guys ask us to back it up, but you also make claims that you don't back up. You still can't prove that God doesn't exist, but u guys say it as if it's a fact. I call that hypocrisy. You have to leave all that hypocritic stuff behind, I am willing to do the same.

But if you're ready we can start with Genesis 1. When you're ready.

~Lady~:

As long as you're being truthful and respectful, I have no problem with it. And you don't make claims that you can't back up. We make claims and you guys ask us to back it up, but you also make claims that you don't back up. You still can't prove that God doesn't exist, but u guys say it as if it's a fact. I call that hypocrisy. You have to leave all that hypocritic stuff behind, I am willing to do the same.

But if you're ready we can start with Genesis 1. When you're ready.

Just because someone believes something to be accurate doesn't mean that it is.  Herodotus believed that there were gold digging ants the size of dogs in northern India.  Some person believed that a guy called Jesus was raised from the dead.  Both of those stories are comparable, sure- patently ridiculous, and rejected as "historically accurate" stories (historians who are Christian may accept the Jesus story outside of their study, though).  But the Bible as a whole is not comparable to Herodotus as a whole.  Many elements of Herodotus are externally verifiable (i.e., there's other evidence not connected with Herodotus which tells us the same stuff that Herodotus tells us).  The only stuff that's externally verifiable in the bible constitutes common knowledge in the Hellenistic/ Roman world at the time (or the periods in which the old testament was written). I say that there is no God/Gods because I can't see any and there is no evidence to show that any exist besides the fact that there have always been so many Gods throughout history. Apart from books written by men and words of men that are used to descibe the Gods what evidence do you have to show that your God is more real that the other Gods out there? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence they say.

Now to genesis do you realize that there are two different accounts of creation in genesis 1 and 2?
Did the bibleGod really create all the animals as vegeterians?

Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.

really,, this one na for the pastors i think, but we can see the real truth that God is the Winner and Science Got Nothing to say here

,

If the story is indeed true? then your guy is one very smooth talker able to twist the truth to his own purposes as is common with most religious people anyway. His response to the lecturer's questions were those of an anarchist intent on scoring cheap points at all costs.

I like the fact that he did point out that all he had was faith/belief anyway because all the questions he posed to the lecturer are areas of human knowledge that even he was able to show extensive understanding of subjects like optics, thermodynamics and psychiatry/psychology unlike his God who is just as much of a psychological concept as infinity is a mathematical concept of an unquantifiably large or small number, the only difference being that while infinity is known to have no personality at all, this God has been given a lot of attributes which are mostly self contradicting and would be immediately obvious to the sincere observer as creations of men.

Point is that he has only succeeded in helping the lecturer properly define his understanding of the concepts of heat, light e.t.c which were never the points in dispute anyway.

Besides, I have one big problem with his final conclusion on what evil is because according to him Evil is the absence or God but we are also told that God is omnipresent is there anyway to reconcile the two?

duduspace:

Besides, I have one big problem with his final conclusion on what evil is because[b] according to him Evil is the absence or God [/b] but we are also told that God is omnipresent is there anyway to reconcile the two?

How can evil be the absence of God when the bibleGod said he created evil?

With all due respect this story is a bunch of crap.
This is the hogwash you get when you leave things to the christians and other religions.
The professor is really stupid and the student is definitely suffering from chronic foolishness.
It is very obvious that the student, the professor and the original poster have no idea what the scientific method or evolution means.
But then again it was a joke, 'I go die' does not usually make sense most times.

Just because someone believes something to be accurate doesn't mean that it is.

Funny enough you believe it to be accurate that God doesn't exist, I guess you just refuted your own claim.

Now to genesis do you realize that there are two different accounts of creation in genesis 1 and 2?
Did the bibleGod really create all the animals as vegeterians?

We're going to start with the background of the Bible and why it is existing in the first place and what it is.

But to answer your question, yes there are two different accounts of the creation in Genesis 1 and 2. This arises from the different narratives of the Bible.
I want you to keep in mind that the Bible was not written in one day and that it didn't fall down from heaven, people tend to think so.

Also there is the septuagint translation and the vulgate translation, the septuagint is the greek-roman translation (old testament) for those Jews who lived in the diaspora, which is what Christ used, and the vulgate is including the New Testament and that's from the Catholic Church, it is translated from the septuagint as well as the various new testament writings in their original languages (greek also).

Below is just for you to keep in mind, especially the ones I put in bold. Just read and keep them in mind, we'll hit on them as we go into Genesis. I want to focus on Gen 1 - 3, maybe 4. If you understand those passages you'll understand why there's the shift from the Old Testament to the New Testament and why it seems the God in the Old is wicked and the God in the new is nicer.

First the Pentateuch.

The Pentateuch which consists of the first five books of the Bible, is regarded as the "Law" or "Torah". It is a body of legal doctrine (mush like the laws of a nation with the 10 commandments as the constitution from which all laws arise, see it's not that different from today), it also contains the story of the formation of the People of God (Abraham, the covenant, Egypt, Sinai, etc)
The grandeur of this historic sweep is the result of a careful and complex joining of several historical traditions, or sources (this puts a hole in the protestant claim of Bible alone huh, lol). These sources are primarily four: the yahwist, elohist, priestly, and deuteronomic strands. Each brings to the Torah its own characteristics, its own theological viewpoint. A superficial difference between two of these sources is responsible for their names: The yahwist prefers the name Yahweh (Lord) by which God revealed himself to Israel; the elohists prefers the generic name for God, Elohim. The yahwist is concrete, imaginative, using many anthropomorphisms in its theological approach as seen, e.g., in the narraitve of creation in Gn 2, compared with the Priestly version in Gn 1 (this explains the two narratives of creation). The elohist is more sober, moralistic. The priestly strand, which emphasizes genealogies, is more severely theological in tone. The deuteronomic approach is characterised by the intense horatory style of Dt 5_11, and by certain principles from which it works, such as the centralisation of worship in the Jerusalem temple.

However, even this analysis of the Pentateuch is an over-simplification, for it is not always possible to distinguish with certainty among the carious sources. The fact is that each of these individual traditions incorporates much older material. The yahwist was himself a collector and adapter. His narrative is made up of many disparate stories that have been reoriented, and given a meaning within the context in which they now stand. Within the yahwist and priestly traditions one has to reckon with many individual units; these had their own history and life-setting before they were brought together into the present more or less connected narrative.

This is not to deny the role of Moses in the development of the Pentateuch. It is true we do not conceive of him as the author of the books in the modern sense. But there is no reason to doubt that, in the events described in these traditions, he had a uniquely important role, especially as lawgiver. Even the later laws which have been added in the Priestly and deuteronomic are presented as a Mosaic heritage. Moses is the lawgiver, and all later legislation is conceived in his spirit, and therefore attributed to him. Hence the reader is not held to undeviating literalness in interpreting the words, "the LORD said to Moses." One must keep in mind that the Pentateuch is the crystallisation of Israel's age-old relationship with God. (so basically everytime it is written "the Lord said, the Lord said" does not literally mean "the Lord said."

This sacred history is found within the bosom of early Israel, guided by the spirit of God. It was sung beside the desert campfires' it was commemorated in the litrugical feasts, such as passover; it was transmitted by word of mouth from generation to generation- until all was brought together in writing about the 6th BC, when the liturgical formation of the Pentateuch came to an end.


The Book of Genesis

This is the first book, but we'll skip all that common knowledge part and go to the theological part.

The tracing of the direct descendance from Adam to Jacob constitutes the major part of the book, while genealogies tables of lateral branches are not so developed nor of such interest as those that pertain to the story of the Israelite people. In fact, these lateral branches gradually disappear from the narrative.
Despite its unity of plan and purpose, the book is a complex work, not to be attributed to a single orginal author. Several sources of literary traditions that the final redactor used in his composition are discernible. We discussed this sources above, yahwisht, elohist, priestly, which in turn reflect oral traditions.
In Genesis the yahwist source is the most important by reason of its teacing, its antiquity, and the continuity it gives the book. It constitutes a sacred history, continually drawing attention to the working out of God's design through his interventions in the affairs of men. The elohist source, less well preserved, is found in fragmentary form only, depicting God's manifestations through visions and dreams rather than theophanies. The priestly source contains those chronological data, lists, genealogies.

The interpreter of Genesis will recognise at once the distinct object that sets chapters 1-11 apart: the recounting of the origin of the world and of man. To make the truths contained in these chapters intelligible to the Israelite people destined to preserve them, they needed to be expressed through elements prevailing among people at that time. For this reason the truths themselves must therefore be clearly distinguished form their literary garb.

By the way you asked your question as if the Bible is trying to hide information. There is no conspiracy theory, I've only found people to be too lazy to study, and when something is brought to their attention, they've already made up their mind on what the Bible is and then they get this big, not so much surprise, surprise and then they loose faith as if it's been hidden from them all along. Nope they've just been too lazy to study.

But when you've read the above let me know, and I will move on to Genesis 1.

By the way, what do you think about Christ's teachings, are they good priniciples to live by or not? (pls answer, thanks)

How can evil be the absence of God when the bibleGod said he created evil?

You must have missed the answer to this in the joke or did you not see that this was one of the questions by the professor. No where does God say he created evil, you'll have to show me seriously.

As for the one who made the statement on God's omnipresent, first do you know what it means? second do you not realise that we can choose to have him absent from us? He is everywhere, but he will not dwell in sin. When you sin, he isn't with you, God is not present within you. God isn't the one that does the sinning, it's us humans that do sin. And because God cannot be with the sinful, he doesn't dwell within us. We have that choice to have him dwell within us or away from us.

Seriously lady you are all over the place, is there a God or not?
We know left to science there is no reason to believe in a God, do you have any other reason aside from faith and your personal convictions, bring it on.
Why can no christian even define the concept of God?

~Lady~:

You must have missed the answer to this in the joke or did you not see that this was one of the questions by the professor. No where does God say he created evil, you'll have to show me seriously.

As for the one who made the statement on God's omnipresent, first do you know what it means? second do you not realise that we can choose to have him absent from us? He is everywhere, but he will not dwell in sin. When you sin, he isn't with you, God is not present within you. God isn't the one that does the sinning, it's us humans that do sin. And because God cannot be with the sinful, he doesn't dwell within us. We have that choice to have him dwell within us or away from us.

I am not Neo, neither am I Obama 

I was pointing out the fact that most Theists are out to  prove the existence/knowledge of God at all costs (despite the overwhelming evidence that suggests he is mostly a creation/concept of man) and in the process end up being contradictory most of the time.

The joke was seemingly trying to use the scientific method to explain the basic contradiction inherent in affirming that 1. God is good and 2. God is the creator of all things which logically implies that God is not good as like only begets like, you either choose one or the other but theists usually like to eat their cake and have it (usually to muddle up the minds of the more gullible amongst us or to confer a similitude of logic to the not so unreasonable need of some folks like you to have the psychological comfort in beleiving that there is something bigger than them/mankind out there).

At the end of the day, there is not much difference between people who beleive in the existence of Aliens and those who beleive in the existence of God (No surprise then that the likes of Kun's  Living perfect master have tried to combine both beliefs).

~Lady~:

Funny enough you believe it to be accurate that God doesn't exist, I guess you just refuted your own claim.

I believe it to be accurate because no God can be seen. Study every religion and you will see that men created all the religions and all the Gods. Moslems, Buddhist, Hindus etc all see and feel their God perhaps even better than the way some Christians see, interact, and feel the presence of their own God.

By the way you asked your question as if the Bible is trying to hide information. There is no conspiracy theory, I've only found people to be too lazy to study, and when something is brought to their attention, they've already made up their mind on what the Bible is and then they get this big, not so much surprise, surprise and then they loose faith as if it's been hidden from them all along. Nope they've just been too lazy to study.

But when you've read the above let me know, and I will move on to Genesis 1.

By the way, what do you think about Christ's teachings, are they good priniciples to live by or not? (pls answer, thanks)

Your write up is nice I must say but it answers little. The problem is that 80 percent of Christians do not know the Christian history or how the bible was written most just believe that it came from heaven. Moses never wrote anything in genesis and your writing just confirms that. I just wonder why genesis is still called and believed to be the first book of moses when truly the authors are unknown. Some of the teachings of Jesus are good. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. Remember the same Jesus never condemned slavery. His messages were based on the level of morality that were acceptable at that time. Our level of morality as out grown that of the bible today. In the old testament the bibleGod advocated slavery, tribalism, racism, rape etc of the non Jews. These vices that we frown at today because the people that wrote all the biblical stories wrote the stories based on their culture, level of morality and how they viewed the world and thought life should be lived. Pls read the old testament again if you haven't, read it up and tell me how you guys still associate the God that is talked about in those books with mercy or love. A God that will instantly kill people because they looked into an ark, harden a persons heart and punish him and other people around him for hardening the persons heart clearly does not understand what love or mercy is. The people that wrote those stories never knew that the world was going to change so much and that their writings were going to be exposed to so many people long after they have died, in fact they never knew other regions existed in the world apart from theirs. Now to genesis 1. It says in the beginning God created the universe, the question is what beginning?

I am with you all the way bindex, what happened before God started to exist?
One more thing, why believe what people wrote thousands of years ago? It is so difficult for them to believe in evolution even when the evidence stares them in the face.

bindex:


I thought those people that wrote all the stories in the holy books were inspired by the various Gods they are promoting? Will the Gods tell people to write things that are clearly wrong or not true? Example all men decended from Adam or that differences in languages began during the tower of bable story?

Hi Bindex. I do not believe that the sacred books of all religions (without exception) is the word of God. I also do not believe that a word of God can be contradicted by past, present, and future scientific discoveries. That is why in my discussions I try to make a clear distinction between God and religion. I do not have issues with people disputing the various concepts of God as taught by various religions and sects. Many of the concepts of God as taught by world religions have nothing to do with God in my opinion. Any normal human being can easily see the inventions of the human mind being taught as the word of God. But those who do not want or are incapable of recognisisng these human inventions should be left alone for each one has a time when recognition will dawn on him or her.

However the various human inventions as taught by world religions in the name of God is not a reason to declare that God does not exist. A good geologist should not give up because the gold he is trying to mine is covered with a lot of impurities and other elements. It is possible for the geologist to remove all the impurities and get the pure gold. There is no book without an author and their is no creation without a creator. Even without spiritual experiences, it is illogical to imagine that the universe or even universes with its overwhelming complexity gave birth to itself. My opinion is that the search for the Truth is the search for the creator of the universe or universes. The name for the creator of the universe is God. My view is that by studying how the universe works, one will with time become aware of the nature or rather a reflection of the nature of the creator of the universe. Best wishes

There is no book without an author and their is no creation without a creator. Even without spiritual experiences, it is illogical to imagine that the universe or even universes with its overwhelming complexity gave birth to itself.

As much as I respect your views sir, I think it is illogical to think there is a creator that was not created. A prime mover sounds logical but what was before time and matter started existing?

Chrisbenogor:

As much as I respect your views sir, I think it is illogical to think there is a creator that was not created. A prime mover sounds logical but what was before time and matter started existing?

Hi Chris. How body? I sse your point but do not agree with it. The reason is that if I call the creator of the Universe God, the question is, is their a universe and the creator of the universe? What you seem to be asking is who is the creator of the creator of the universe. I do not think that is the issue in dispute. Let us first resolve wheather or not the universe created itself or wheather a power external and independent of the universe created the universe. Thus I ask do you think that the universe was created or that the universe created itself?

I will rather use God instead of prime mover since the former is connected with some philosophical connotations. Before time and matter, God is. Time and matter cannot come from itself since a nonexistent quantity cannot give rise to an existent quantity. In otherwords, where do time and matter come from? Thus it is logical that time and matter came from that which has been existence before time and matter. That which has been in existence before time, matter and much else is God. Cheers.

I am just fine sir, trying to cope with some medical issues but all should be well.
To your first question my honest answer is that I don't know, so if you know maybe we should work with that. My questions arose from the answers that most religions have given.
I am pointing out that saying the world was created by God i.e. Time and matter were created by God leaves a very big question,
If God created existence how was God in existence?
Time and matter is existence.

Chrisbenogor:

I am just fine sir, trying to cope with some medical issues but all should be well.
To your first question my honest answer is that I don't know, so if you know maybe we should work with that. My questions arose from the answers that most religions have given.
I am pointing out that saying the world was created by God i.e. Time and matter were created by God leaves a very big question,
If God created existence how was God in existence?
Time and matter is existence.

I am pleased that your are fine. You are very honest and that is what I admire in you. Since you do not know, I think you keep to it instead of saying as some of your postings suggest that God is not in existent. I do not think you are an atheist. Time and matter is not existence as you stated but a consequence of existence. What is existence I will argue should have no beginning or no end or else it is not existence. Existence should have life or one can say that existence is life. Time and matter has a beginning and thus does not qualify to be called existence. Both of us agree that time and matter exists. Both of us also agree that at a certain point, time and matter as we know it began. If time and matter is in existence, their are three premises: one is that time and matter came from some non existent quantity, time and matter came from it self, or that time and matter came of a creator already in existence prior to the existence of time and matter. The first premise is flawed because something cannot come from nothing. In otherwords existence cannot come from nonexistence. The second premise is also flawed because it is known that time and matter started at some point. Besides, what is the source of this time and matter? The third premise is more logically in that time and matter is something and that something must come from something else.

Time and matter is a consequence of existence. Existence is only in God. The same also is true of Life. Life is only in God. Thus the existence of time, of matter, of life in the universe is a consequence of the primordial Life. My point is that time and matter is a consequence and not the causuality. The causuality is God. If time and matter is the causaulity as you seem to suggest, then how come time and matter which has no counsciouness and intellegence at the point it caused itself to exist created humans with consciouness and intellegence. There is no evidence that time and matter is aware of their existence. It is indeed an irony that consequences of time and matter, that is man as you seem to suggest is now informing matter, space and time that they exist. A crude analogy may surfice. Time/matter and God can be likened to a gifted artist and his works of arts. The talent of the artist is in the artist, a part of the artist and this artist with his talent has been in existence even before the first artistic work. The talent of the artist cannot be seen because the artist has not yet given form to his talent. When the artist then gave form to his talent, we see it in his paintings and sculptures. The paintings and sculptures came from the artist but they are not the artist nor the talent of the artist. The artists can destroy the works of art that he produced and will not be destroyed in the process and yet he is still the artist of the destroyed work. The art work has existence because the artist is already existing. The artist is God, the talent of the artist is the creative ability that is in God and the works of art is the space, time, matter etc that came from God. Cheers.

Chrisbenogor:

I am just fine sir, trying to cope with some medical issues but all should be well.
To your first question my honest answer is that I don't know, so if you know maybe we should work with that. My questions arose from the answers that most religions have given.
I am pointing out that saying the world was created by God i.e. Time and matter were created by God leaves a very big question,
If God created existence how was God in existence?
Time and matter is existence.

Have you rea about Einsten's quagmire when he first prounded the theory of relativity (which states that time and space is relative) He discovered that there was another angle to time and space which defied scientific logic, even though he was able to prov it mathematically he just couldn't understand it cause it defied all scientific laws and knowledge. It was just last year after a hundred years of the theory that some scientists are beginning to understand the theory. This goes to prove to us that all is not what it seems to be and there are a lot of issues science CANNOT answer. The reality of God is just tooo awesome for the human mind to comprehend, i just won't bother to trystarting to prove his existence cause the evidence is just too overwhelming

KunleOshob:

Have you rea about Einsten's quagmire when he first prounded the theory of relativity (which states that time and space is relative) He discovered that there was another angle to time and space which defied scientific logic, even though he was able to prov it mathematically he just couldn't understand it cause it defied all scientific laws and knowledge. It was just last year after a hundred years of the theory that some scientists are beginning to understand the theory. This goes to prove to us that all is not what it seems to be and there are a lot of issues science CANNOT answer. The reality of God is just tooo awesome for the human mind to comprehend, i just won't bother to trystarting to prove his existence cause the evidence is just too overwhelming

I do not think that chris is saying that science has the answer to all questions. He is simply questioning the various concepts of God and that is his choice to do so. My view is that he is sincerely searching for Truth. If you have answers to his questions, then offer him. Stay blessed.

A chat with you Mr. Nwankwo is as always very interesting.
Let me clear up something, I am an agnostic atheist ( at least that's where the evidence I have on spiritual matters have left me). I say atheist because I do not believe the monotheistic Gods (christianity, lslam and judaism exist). To put it in a better way if God exists he is certainly not the way their books potray him and that also explains the agnostic part, if there is a God I really do not know what he is like. Hope that clears that part.
Your analogy of the artist and talent is the best persuasion anybody has given me about God in a long long time, you have used a similar analogy to describe freewill in the past and it is very compelling indeed only it manages to not answer the fundamental question.
Time, matter existence.
If I want to apply my question to your analogy it would be like this:
Time started existing for those paintings when the artist painted them, but that does not mean time and matter was not already existing before they were painted!
At a certain point( or time so we are not confused) that artist was born, when was it and how did the artist come about? That is the point I am referring to, and if the artist( God in your analogy had parents ) at what point did something start existing out of nothing? How can God have been out of nothing?
If it is possible that God came from nothing, time and matter could have too.
If it is possible that God is, time and matter could have been too, no?

@Chris

It is a pleasure discussing with you too. Let me address the issues you raised.

Let me clear up something, I am an agnostic atheist ( at least that's where the evidence I have on spiritual matters have left me). I say atheist because I do not believe the monotheistic Gods (christianity, lslam and judaism exist). To put it in a better way if God exists he is certainly not the way their books potray him and that also explains the agnostic part, if there is a God I really do not know what he is like. Hope that clears that part.
Your analogy of the artist and talent is the best persuasion anybody has given me about God in a long long time, you have used a similar analogy to describe freewill in the past and it is very compelling indeed only it manages to not answer the fundamental question.
Time, matter existence.

Thanks for the clarification. Sure it clears that part. I do know that God exists and in my view God is not what sacred books of all world religions potray him to be. Since you have recognised that, it does not make sense to base your search for the existence or otherwise of God based on the books of world religions. My analogy was not meant to aswer the fundamental question but to sensitize you so that you will answer the fundamental question yourself. The search for God is a personal journey and each person have to travel that path alone.

If I want to apply my question to your analogy it would be like this:
Time started existing for those paintings when the artist painted them, but that does not mean time and matter was not already existing before they were painted!
At a certain point( or time so we are not confused) that artist was born, when was it and how did the artist come about? That is the point I am referring to, and if the artist( God in your analogy had parents ) at what point did something start existing out of nothing? How can God have been out of nothing?
If it is possible that God came from nothing, time and matter could have too.
If it is possible that God is, time and matter could have been too, no?

Time and matter as far as the paintings are concerned came into existence when the artist brought them into existence. The artist in the sense I used it is God and that implies that he has no begining and no end. Your question is who created God? Your argument would have been logical if space and time have no beginning but we know they have. All scientific evidence available recognise that space and time came from something, that is, it has a beginning. The Big Bang Theory which most scientist accepts as a reasonable explanation for the evolution of our universe accepts that an explosion of a primordial "particle" or particles 13.7 billion years ago resulted in the universe, space, time, matter etc. Science have no aswer where this "particle" came from, what even caused the explosion or even the state of this particle before it exploded . Thus from what science knows, the universe and its associated time and space did not come from nothing but from a "particle". Thus the question of wheather space and time came from nothing does not arise since scientific evidence already shows that space and matter did not come from nothing. My view is that this primeval particle or particles is a particulate precipitation of the power of God, that is the particles that gave birth to the universe came from God or more precisely from the power of God.


Now God did not come from anything else because true Life should be absolutely independent of everything else. That means that it exists in itself. Thus taking into cognisnace of the limitation of our language I can say that God is the creator of all the worlds visible and invisible and all creations came from God and is absoultely dependent on God but God is independent of everthing else. Thus God did not come out of nothing, neither did God come out of something because God has no beginning and has no end. Thus God did not come out of nothing or something because the idea of coming out implies temporality and that is in contradiction to eternality, the former being an intrinsic attribute of God. God is eternal. I am sure that the concept of eternality will be a problem for you but I cannot explain that for their are no words to give form to such an infinite word. But at least I hope that my views will induce some reflection. As always,stay blessed!

Seriously lady you are all over the place, is there a God or not?
We know left to science there is no reason to believe in a God, do you have any other reason aside from faith and your personal convictions, bring it on.
Why can no christian even define the concept of God?

My point in the write up was not to prove that God exists, bindex asked me to dialogue with him on the book of Genesis. That's what I am doing. To understand it one must first understand the background of the Bible, why it was written and what it really contains.

So please allow me to do that. Stop jumping the gun.