Kay17:


I asked what is the test not which religion had the true concept of God.

Kay17:


The typical skeptic's response is whether all things that are organized and ordered must come from a creator as an absolute rule. Now if it is not then you have to mention the exceptions.

However if it is an absolute rule then God himself for being supremely ordered and organized cannot escape his need of a creator.

Again the absolute rule would be useless and absurd if it creates an infinite chain of cause and effect.

felixomor:


Old Gist.

Please educate yourself on what you call bible "contradictions"
Here:

https://www.nairaland.com/3538710/bible-contradiction-dummies-correction-internet

AnonyNymous:

I read the content of the link. It doesn't apply to any of the contradictions he listed. . .

felixomor:


It provides the key that unlocks all "contradictions"
..

AnonyNymous:

Nope. Not at all. I understood the once you were talking about in your post. But the contradictions he listed out for you do not in any way apply to what you 'explained'. But well, arrogance is a common trait of Christians. I can see you're already convinced that you 'proven everything wrong' so there's no need to continue with you.

KingEbukasBlog:


Man's spirit is an unembodied mind .

KingEbukasBlog:


Scrutiny .

KingEbukasBlog:



Does God have parts that need to be ordered and organized Let's play a game dear : name 5 parts God has . GO !

Kay17:


Would you agree with me that energy time space and gravity for being without parts are uncreated?

A cornucopia of scientific evidences show that the universe has a beginning , anything outside this is a belief . Many atheists strongly believe that science could be wrong about our universe having a beginning . Prior to the discovery of so many remarkable evidences supporting a finite universe , ancient atheists were intransigent of their view of an eternal universe . They believed that a finite universe would be an irrefragable evidence that a creator does exist but an eternal universe would strongly suggest that no creator exist . But how true is this view ? Let's look at the three popular concepts of creation :

KingEbukasBlog:


All matter , energy , space , time were created in the Big Bang .

wirinet:

The bolded is not exactly correct. Your conclusions are based on wrong premises. There are no scientific evidence that the universe has a beginning? There are evidences that the material universe has beginning, but the universe is composed of much more than matter, in fact the material universe you are familiar with comprises less less than 5% of the known universe.

Yes, the universe has always been, the universe is and the universe will always be. Remember the law of conservation of energy -energy can neither be created nor destroyed but can only be transformed into other forms. Matter is a form of energy, motion is a form of energy, even space is a form of energy.

wirinet:

The universe is far bigger than your Jewish old man or his only begotten son, who goes around fighting for the Jews or exhibit all the petty negative emotions seen in humans.

KingEbukasBlog:

4. God is a three-dimensional being , a facsimile of a fatherly figure , who lives in the clouds

There is a concept called anthropomorphism - this involves the use of human-like characteristics to depict God . Hebrew writers of the bible have explained the use of anthropomorphism in the bible to make God comprehensible to the human reader . This means that phrases like 'The Hand of God' , the 'finger of God' have been said to be metaphorical .

Ancient Greek Philosopher Xenophanes severely criticized the use of anthropomorphism in the depiction of God . He said :

But if cattle and horses and lions had hands
or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do,
horses like horses and cattle like cattle
also would depict the gods' shapes and make their bodies
of such a sort as the form they themselves have.
...
Ethiopians say that their gods are snub–nosed and black
Thracians that they are pale and red-haired.
...
"One god, greatest among gods and humans,
like mortals neither in form nor in thought."
"But mortals think that the gods are born
and have the mortals' own clothes and voice and form."

All Xenophanes was trying to say that God does not resemble humans in mind or in form , isn't born and does not die and is not a three dimensional being , therefore he sees not the need for the use of anthropomorphism .

And for God living in the clouds : why would an eternal non-three dimensional immaterial being who created the universe and everything in it choose to live in the clouds on earth ? Why would God , the source/container of all reality , live in the cloud ? How is that even possible ?

wirinet:


No science textbook will tell you that energy was created at the big bang.

IgboLoyalist:

@OP
Don't you think it's exceptionally odd, that God revealed himself thousands upon thousands of years ago to men roaming in desserts, and seemingly perished from existence after that? Ex: Mohammad was in a cave when he saw the putative "Angel" Gabriel who was used as an intermediary messenger for God. It's been awhile since I have read the bible, but Moses supposedly observed God's back from afar in the dessert. Now, the question is, could all of these men, in desserts, thousands of years ago have seen God or communicated with Angels? If your answer yes, you're displaying your extreme naïvety. I concur a different hypothesis, maybe they were hallucinating, or were suffering horrendously from schizophrenia.


Secondly, I think you're thoroughly misunderstanding science and its purposefulness. It's not some tool exclusively used to make up explanations of the whys or whats of the world like religion or "faith". It's a methodology utilized to propound an idea and keenly test out that said idea. For example, when it rains. It's not because "God" is in a tempestuous mood, like religion has you believe. It's because water has evaporated and condensed into clouds, these cloudy formations after embarking on maximum capacity, simply cannot hold anymore water, thus releasing it back onto Earth. You can test this theory by forming clouds at a laboratory.


Ancient Greece grew out of Greek mythology, Iran grew almost grew out of Zoroastrianism. Fortunate news, the next step in human enlightenment is to have science supersede creationist ideologies. I find a particularly interesting when I ask theists for evidence of his/her nominal God. I get nothing but a simple term, "faith". Basically: No evidence, just instinctive, not credible, gut feeling. Now I realize it's hard to think of this topic for an unbiased perspective because I'd imagined you have been religious from a remarkably young age. It holds a sentimental position in your heart. Take my reply for what it's worth my paddy.

KingEbukasBlog:


You keep repeating the same old rebutted arguments . You guys just don't learn . Let's start this way : Did God reveal Himself to the deists ?
Maybe this article will help : https://www.nairaland.com/3500235/must-read-god-without-religion

IgboLoyalist:


We'll keep repeating these points until they're diligently instilled in the average theist's mind. There's as much evidence for mermaids as there is for God.

KingEbukasBlog:


You didn't answer my question . Please no circumlocution . Did God reveal Himself to the deists ? Yes or No

KingEbukasBlog:


Keep Deceiving yourself

www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

wirinet:


You seem obsessed with this lecture of Stephen hawkings. You are using it to reach a conclusions that your Jewish God created the universe, a conclusion even Hawkings did not reach. I am certain you did not read or understand the whole lecture, Hawkings was simply giving two different hypothesis of the beginning of the universe, one that is in need of an external agent and one that does not. You are simply fixated with the model that requires an external agent and ignore the one that does not.
Hawkings never said there was nothing before the big bang or the big bang started from nothing, this is what he said;

So i wonder where you got the erroneous idea that scientists say there was nothing before the big bang.

If you particle physics, the basic constituents of matter are atoms, which are composed of protons, neurons and electrons ( with their anti particle counterparts ), and protons, neutrons and protons are made of quarks, all these were created at the big bang. Hydrogen and a bit of helium was created immediately after the big bang, all other elements were created inside stars way after the big bang.

I am wasting my time explaining these principle not because i hope to convince (or even educate you), as you are already set in your misconceptions, but to educate the young inquisitive scientific minds.

wirinet:


You seem obsessed with this lecture of Stephen hawkings. You are using it to reach a conclusions that your Jewish God created the universe, a conclusion even Hawkings did not reach. I am certain you did not read or understand the whole lecture, Hawkings was simply giving two different hypothesis of the beginning of the universe, one that is in need of an external agent and one that does not. You are simply fixated with the model that requires an external agent and ignore the one that does not.
Hawkings never said there was nothing before the big bang or the big bang started from nothing, this is what he said;

So i wonder where you got the erroneous idea that scientists say there was nothing before the big bang.

If you particle physics, the basic constituents of matter are atoms, which are composed of protons, neurons and electrons ( with their anti particle counterparts ), and protons, neutrons and protons are made of quarks, all these were created at the big bang. Hydrogen and a bit of helium was created immediately after the big bang, all other elements were created inside stars way after the big bang.

I am wasting my time explaining these principle not because i hope to convince (or even educate you), as you are already set in your misconceptions, but to educate the young inquisitive scientific minds.

IgboLoyalist:


No.

KingEbukasBlog:


So how were the deists able to deduce that a transcendent being /creator of the universe exist ? And why were they so convinced about the verity of their observations ?

IgboLoyalist:


It's a postulation that a omniscient transcendental being exists but wants to remain apart from his creations, due to his own volition or he just too occupied too care, whatever the reason may be.

The thing about postulations, is that you can utilize it as a straw-man argument, but it makes little to no sense if you look at it from a particular angle.

"I have never seen a unicorn or a leprechaun, so I am going to assume it's because they do not want to reveal themselves."

That's akin to the argument you're trying to establish. We look at such stories from a scientific perspective. Does God exist. Maybe, but it's 0.00000000001% likely. It's not provable, because it's an abstract creation inside the head. Like unicorns or ghosts, they probably 0.000000000001% exist who knows.

felixomor:


Hian

KingEbukasBlog:


Leave uncle wirinet and his beliefs in an eternal universe . When you ask for evidence for an eternal universe he'll you energy cannot be created nor destroyed , oblivious of the breaking down of the Law of Conservation of energy at the Big Bang . Its clearly obvious who has misconceptions.

KingEbukasBlog:


All matter and energy came into being at the initial cosmological singularity. Physicists and Cosmologists Barrow and Tipler made this observation after their research : "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.

Even models created by Physicists Hartle and Hawking did not rule out God's existence , it just tried to eliminate the need for God during creation by making the universe seem self contained by introducing imaginary numbers in Einsteins gravitational equation thus making the universe have no boundary or edge . Hawking admitted he was wrong in the article I gave you .

Hawking also stated clearly in that article that the universe material [s] or in any supposed form has not existed forever and the laws of physics bespeak of a finite universe though these laws do not make it clear how the universe began .[/s]

You know what , I wonder why you atheists blatantly ignore science whenever it clearly contravenes your wishful thoughts of an eternal universe . I told you that in that in that write up that an eternal universe does not automatically eliminate the existence of God instead this eternal universe still depends on the existence of God though its eternal nature supposes necessarily existence . And I used abstract objects which are uncreated in an explanation I posted to Kay17 to how being an uncreated entity does not contest with God's supremacy .

IgboLoyalist:


It's a postulation that a omniscient transcendental being exists but wants to remain apart from his creations, due to his own volition or he just too occupied too care, whatever the reason may be.

felixomor:


So Deists base their belief on a mere postulation, Right?