tintingz:
First of all, we don't know if there is another dimensional space or not.

Ok, to point how your flaws in your argument using your omnipotent and omniscient deity to your argument.

- So if we assume God is the knower here, then God knowledge evolve with time, God learn from prior events?

Actually, God is a knower. But check my previous rebuttal to your post, I did not say God is the KNOWER in our discussion regarding the scientific knowledge about the nature.

This is what I wrote ; "And if the KNOWER cannot be the nature, then it must be a supernatural entity (human soul or spirit).
The only reasonable source for this supernatural entity is God"

So the KNOWER is human soul (or spirit ) ; not God. And it is logical for the knowledge of this human soul to be evolved with time.

tintingz:



And note, change doesn't necessarily need an "external cause" it can need "cause or causes", you don't have to assume "external" to it.

The reason why a change in something needs an EXTERNAL cause is explained below;

For anything to change, there must be a sufficient cause. But if the "all the necessary cause" which is going to trigger this change is INTERNAL (i:e already present inside the something), then no change would be observed because the final state would always precede the initial state. Yet for a CHANGE to occur, the initial state must always precede the final state.

For an illustration, let assume that three drops of an indicator (i:e all the necessary cause) is what is required to CHANGE the colour of an alkali from colourless to pink. That is to say, immediately I finished dropping the third drop, the color will suddenly change from colourless to pink. You will agree with me that "all the three drops" are EXTERNAL CAUSE (i:e outside the alkali). Now if all the three drops of indicator has already inside the alkali right from the beginning of its production (INTERNAL CAUSE), then the INITIAL color of the alkali would be pink instead of colorless. So "changing" from colorless (INITIAL) to pink (FINAL) would never be observed because the initial color of alkali is already pink not colorless. Therefore, only external cause can effect a CHANGE. No change can be observed if the cause is internal.

tintingz:



- And secondly, if God is outside the universe then how come he intervenes to a very tiny dust in the milky way galaxy earth?

How are you sure that a very tiny dust in the milky way galaxy earth "actually exist in real" and "not only exist in our brain" ? When you dip a stick inside a water, our brain present the stick to us as being bent. But does the stick really bent in physical ? So it is very possible that our physical universe only exist in our brain and not actually real as we believed. So may be everything is spiritual. Under this condition, for spiritual God to intervene is not a problem.

tintingz:


- Thirdly, if God is outside the universe doing his thing then he must be in another space and time bound to a law or the universe is infinite and God is bound to it.

God is not a physical entity that must be bounded by physical laws. He exist and operate outside space and time

Again, universe is not infinite ; recent discovery in science like big bang theory and theory of expanding universe has shown that universe has a beginning. So God is not bound to it. It is the universe that bound to God because it began to exist which proves that the universe must have a sufficient cause (God) for its existence.

If you have agreed that only EXTERNAL CAUSE can effect a change in something, then atheism is FALSE because of the following reason;

If nature is all that exist and no part of nature can see, can hear, can speak, can think, can know, can feel, can move voluntarily in the PAST, then human beings who possessed all these AMAZING FEATURES can never be emerged from the same very nature. This is because for all these features to be suddenly appeared in the midst of nature, then nature has changed drastically. Yet this is impossible in an atheistic world that give no room for the sufficient EXTERNAL CAUSE that would effect this change. Since human beings with all these features are now present in the world, then atheism is not true.

Abdulgaffar22:


Actually, God is a knower. But check my previous rebuttal to your post, I did not say God is the KNOWER in our discussion regarding the scientific knowledge about the nature.

This is what I wrote ; "And if the KNOWER cannot be the nature, then it must be a supernatural entity (human soul or spirit).
The only reasonable source for this supernatural entity is God"

Are you not still implying God is the knower? What exactly is your argument?

We are humans and part of nature, we know things with our brains!

There's nothing like spirit or soul doing the job.

So the KNOWER is human soul (or spirit ) ; not God. And it is logical for the knowledge of this human soul to be evolved with time.

The brain is where our intellect is and our conciousness, there is no soul doing anything or you will have to prove this soul to me.

The reason why a change in something needs an EXTERNAL cause is explained below;

For anything to change, there must be a sufficient cause. But if the "all the necessary cause" which is going to trigger this change is INTERNAL (i:e already present inside the something), then no change would be observed because the final state would always precede the initial state. Yet for a CHANGE to occur, the initial state must always precede the final state.

Evolution happens and there's no evidence of any external cause doing anything and even if we assume there is an external cause doing the changing then such external cause is imperfect and doesn't fit the God you are talking about.

And besides if you keep saying there must be an external cause doing the nature changing then this external cause must have a prior external cause.

For an illustration, let assume that three drops of an indicator (i:e all the necessary cause) is what is required to CHANGE the colour of an alkali from colourless to pink. That is to say, immediately I finished dropping the third drop, the color will suddenly change from colourless to pink. You will agree with me that "all the three drops" are EXTERNAL CAUSE (i:e outside the alkali). Now if all the three drops of indicator has already inside the alkali right from the beginning of its production (INTERNAL CAUSE), then the INITIAL color of the alkali would be pink instead of colorless. So "changing" from colorless (INITIAL) to pink (FINAL) would never be observed because the initial color of alkali is already pink not colorless. Therefore, only external cause can effect a CHANGE. No change can be observed if the cause is internal.

Then you will agree an external cause must have a prior external cause if you want to use this logic.

How are you sure that a very tiny dust in the milky way galaxy earth "actually exist in real" and "not only exist in our brain" ? When you dip a stick inside a water, our brain present the stick to us as being bent. But does the stick really bent in physical ? So it is very possible that our physical universe only exist in our brain and not actually real as we believed. So may be everything is spiritual. Under this condition, for spiritual God to intervene is not a problem.

Why not say maybe everything is imaginary like we're in a matrix.

God is not a physical entity that must be bounded by physical laws. He exist and operate outside space and time

If God exist outside space and time, so where he is there's no space and time? If yes then such God doesn't exist, for something to exist there must be space and time.

Again, universe is not infinite ; recent discovery in science like big bang theory and theory of expanding universe has shown that universe has a beginning.

Where is it said the big bang is the beginning of the universe?!

So God is not bound to it. It is the universe that bound to God because it began to exist which proves that the universe must have a sufficient cause (God) for its existence.

The universe has been existing, that's what we know for now.

The universe is bound to laws of physics or better still nature.

Abdulgaffar22:
If you have agreed that only EXTERNAL CAUSE can effect a change in something, then atheism is FALSE because of the following reason;

If nature is all that exist and no part of nature can see, can hear, can speak, can think, can know, can feel, can move voluntarily in the PAST, then human beings who possessed all these AMAZING FEATURES can never be emerged from the same very nature. This is because for all these features to be suddenly appeared in the midst of nature, then nature has changed drastically. Yet this is impossible in an atheistic world that give no room for the sufficient EXTERNAL CAUSE that would effect this change. Since human beings with all these features are now present in the world, then atheism is not true.

Ok, God who has more "amazing features" doesn't require a prime external cause?

And look around you, does the universe looks all perfect to you?

Abdulgaffar22:


Yes they did believe in one supreme God in addition to many gods. Hardly do you see any ethnic group without having a name for supreme God. For example, in Yoruba land, Supreme God is called " Olorun or Eledumare". In Hausa land, Supreme God is called "Ubangidi". In Igbo land, Supreme God is called " Chineke". If they didn't believe in any Supreme God, then where did all these names come from ?



Hardly do you see an atheist among the ancient people. It was the theory of evolution that turn many scientists to atheists. Prior to Darwinism, most people believed in supernatural power. So there is no need for the ancient people to distinguish between chaos and disaster. They believed that flooding and earthquake is an handiwork of God or gods.



If Bible says Jesus is God and at same time says Jesus is not God, then that is a contradiction. This prove that Bible cannot be relied upon.

Abraham practiced Islam as follows;
One of the God's will that was revealed to Abraham is "Sacrifice your only son for Me". Since Abraham was able to submit to this very will, he has practiced Islam (i:e submission to God's will). Therefore, Abraham was a Muslim (submitter to the will of God).

Pls prove to us that Abraham was a Christian by showing us any biblical verse that says Abraham believed in the atoning work of Jesus on the cross.

I thought you wanted to have an unbiased logical open minded discussion. Clearly not.

It's okay to be biased. Just dont cover it under the pretense of open minded logic.

tintingz:

Are you not still implying God is the knower? What exactly is your argument?
We are humans and part of nature, we know things with our brains!
There's nothing like spirit or soul doing the job.
The brain is where our intellect is and our conciousness, there is no soul doing anything or you will have to prove this soul to me.

God is the first Knower who are created all other Knowers (human souls)
But brain is just a lump of flesh made up of mindless atoms. So if small traces of intelligence, consciousness, memory and all other features are no where to be found in these atoms that make up the brain, then how does the brain managed to acquire all these amazing features ? Are we to believe that the mere arrangement of these atoms in a certain way is enough to produce all these gigantic miracles ?
Yet you are claiming that there is no any supernatural ingredient (soul) to "activate" this little lump of flesh (brain) to start functioning just like electric current "activate" our television set to resume working.
According to modern science, when light rays enter our eyes and strike the retina, a series of electrical impulses are generated which are conveyed through the optic nerve to the brain. In some part of the brain called visual cortex, these electrical impulses are reconverted back to visual perceptions known as image. Now my question is this; if human soul does not exist, then who is the actual " VIEWER or SEER" of this very image ? Who is the actual "LISTENER or HEARER" of the sound perceptions created in small part of the brain called auditory cortex ? Yes the actual "seer" and actual "hearer" is the human soul.

tintingz:

Evolution happens and there's no evidence of any external cause doing anything

For athestic evolution to create the species of male and female human beings with all their amazing features, THREE UNSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEMS listed below have to be solved;
1. Problem of creating the FIRST LIVING CELL from NON-LIVING materials ; The natural law of entropy which always cause the complex dead cells to decay and disintegrate into simpler lifeless particles would NEVER give room for any natural process which might tend to gradually build the first functional and self-replicating living cell from such lifeless particles in the first instance.
Here is the analogy; the natural law of gravitation which tends to cause the fruits to fall down from a tree can never give room for any natural process which may tend to cause the fruits to rise up the same tree .
Therefore, the first living and self-replicating cell required to start the entire process of evolution could not have gradually and naturally emerged from non living things.

2. Problem of creating the FIRST FUNCTIONAL MALE & FEMALE species from ASEXUALLY reproducing organisms by random process.


3. Problem of creating male & female HIGHER animal species like human beings from the male & female LOWER animal species by random process.
Due to these THREE unsurmountable problems, atheistic evolution is impossible. Therefore, even if evolution is true, it can only take place in a theistic world; not atheistic world.

tintingz:

and even if we assume there is an external cause doing the changing then such external cause is imperfect and doesn't fit the God you are talking about.

A robot that was made is not in best position to say that the person who made it is not perfect. This is because the intelligence it was using to condemn the work done by its maker was given to it by the same maker. So how can it rely on such intelligence to make judgment ?
But if the robot deny the existence of its maker and attribute its creation to an unintelligent entity, then what give the robot an assurance that intelligence it received from this unintelligent entity is perfect, trustworthy and reliable ?

tintingz:

And besides if you keep saying there must be an external cause doing the nature changing then this external cause must have a prior external cause.

There must always be a FIRST cause which must independently exist in order to avoid infinite regression of causes into the past.
For example. If an entity A must be caused by entity B , and entity B must be caused by entity C, and entity C must be caused by entity D and so on. If this series continue without an end, then entity A would never be caused into existence. For entity A to exist, then this series must have an end. In other words, there must be a FIRST AND INDEPENDENT ENTITY which must exist on its own. It is this first and independent entity that would cause all other entities in the series to exist. This first and independent entity is God.
Again, remember that this first and independent entity is unchangeable and He is not like nature which change continuously. Therefore, if nature required an external cause to effect its changing characteristic, then God does not require any external cause because being unchangeable, He would never change.

tintingz:

Why not say maybe everything is imaginary like we're in a matrix. Then I can know the length of your delusion.

But there is no way you can "step out" of your brain to directly observe the physical universe.
All what we know about our universe are subjective(rather than objective) because we always depend on our brain to get any information about the universe. But how are we sure that our brain is feeding us with TRUE information ? For example, consider a young child who has never heard anything about MIRAGE. If he sees a mirage at a distant place as a "true pool of water" and he was not opportuned to reach that very place, then he would be fed with false information. So similar thing can occur to us because we are unable to step out of our brain and observe the universe directly.

tintingz:


The universe has been existing, that's what we know for now.

If the universe has always been existing and has no beginning, then it is either there would be no stars or every thing would have been hot as stars. This is because, if the universe is infinitely old as you claimed, then by now, equilibrium of heat transfer must have been reached. This is known as heat death paradox. But since stars still exist and everywhere is not as hot as stars, then there is no way for the universe to be infinitely old.

Abdulgaffar22:

God is the first Knower who are created all other Knowers (human souls).

How did you come into this conclusion?

But brain is just a lump of flesh made up of mindless atoms. So if small traces of intelligence, consciousness, memory and all other features are no where to be found in these atoms that make up the brain, then how does the brain managed to acquire all these amazing features ? Are we to believe that the mere arrangement of these atoms in a certain way is enough to produce all these gigantic miracles ?
Yet you are claiming that there is no any supernatural ingredient (soul) to "activate" this little lump of flesh (brain) to start functioning just like electric current "activate" our television set to resume working.
According to modern science, when light rays enter our eyes and strike the retina, a series of electrical impulses are generated which are conveyed through the optic nerve to the brain. In some part of the brain called visual cortex, these electrical impulses are reconverted back to visual perceptions known as image.

If you cannot provide this evidence of soul then your argument is nonsensical.

Anything that happens to the brain happens to your conciousness, there's no fairy soul controlling it.

Now my question is this; if human soul does not exist, then who is the actual " VIEWER or SEER" of this very image ? Who is the actual "LISTENER or HEARER" of the sound perceptions created in small part of the brain called auditory cortex ? Yes the actual "seer" and actual "hearer" is the human soul.

The brain is all that we have, we are the user of the brain, every other thing you are saying are fairytales.

For athestic evolution to create the species of male and female human beings with all their amazing features, THREE UNSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEMS listed below have to be solved;
1. Problem of creating the FIRST LIVING CELL from NON-LIVING materials ; The natural law of entropy which always cause the complex dead cells to decay and disintegrate into simpler lifeless particles would NEVER give room for any natural process which might tend to gradually build the first functional and self-replicating living cell from such lifeless particles in the first instance.
Here is the analogy; the natural law of gravitation which tends to cause the fruits to fall down from a tree can never give room for any natural process which may tend to cause the fruits to rise up the same tree .
Therefore, the first living and self-replicating cell required to start the entire process of evolution could not have gradually and naturally emerged from non living things.

2. Problem of creating the FIRST FUNCTIONAL MALE & FEMALE species from ASEXUALLY reproducing organisms by random process.


3. Problem of creating male & female HIGHER animal species like human beings from the male & female LOWER animal species by random process.
Due to these THREE unsurmountable problems, atheistic evolution is impossible. Therefore, even if evolution is true, it can only take place in a theistic world; not atheistic world.

You are Ignorant of abiogenesis and evolution, find time to read and understand the theory.

You want us to believe God created a man and a woman in a fairy garden then these two people made the population of earth with different races? Maybe telling Prometheus creation story would be better.

A robot that was made is not in best position to say that the person who made it is not perfect. This is because the intelligence it was using to condemn the work done by its maker was given to it by the same maker. So how can it rely on such intelligence to make judgment ?

Humans are not perfect and we're make amazing things. If a robot is not perfect then the maker is not perfect.

Being perfect means "completeness" no room for modifications and errors.

But if the robot deny the existence of its maker and attribute its creation to an unintelligent entity, then what give the robot an assurance that intelligence it received from this unintelligent entity is perfect, trustworthy and reliable ?

A robot cannot deny it maker since they can relate with it.

There must always be a FIRST cause which must independently exist in order to avoid infinite regression of causes into the past.

Did you know this or assume this? That there must be a first cause?

So if something can independently exist, are you saying something can come out of nothing?

For example. If an entity A must be caused by entity B , and entity B must be caused by entity C, and entity C must be caused by entity D and so on. If this series continue without an end, then entity A would never be caused into existence. For entity A to exist, then this series must have an end. In other words, there must be a FIRST AND INDEPENDENT ENTITY which must exist on its own. It is this first and independent entity that would cause all other entities in the series to exist. This first and independent entity is God.
Again, remember that this first and independent entity is unchangeable and He is not like nature which change continuously. Therefore, if nature required an external cause to effect its changing characteristic, then God does not require any external cause because being unchangeable, He would never change.

Again did you agree something can come out of nothing?

And how did you know God is the independent first causer here, how did you know this, did you go back in time to find out it's your God?

But there is no way you can "step out" of your brain to directly observe the physical universe.
All what we know about our universe are subjective(rather than objective) because we always depend on our brain to get any information about the universe. But how are we sure that our brain is feeding us with TRUE information ? For example, consider a young child who has never heard anything about MIRAGE. If he sees a mirage at a distant place as a "true pool of water" and he was not opportuned to reach that very place, then he would be fed with false information. So similar thing can occur to us because we are unable to step out of our brain and observe the universe directly.

We have studied the brain to know what's illusion and what's not and religious people possess this illusionary disorder.

They have problem identifying what's real and what's not.

We can all confirm the cup is on the table, but can we all confirm there's an invisible fairy on the tree?

If the universe has always been existing and has no beginning, then it is either there would be no stars or every thing would have been hot as stars. This is because, if the universe is infinitely old as you claimed, then by now, equilibrium of heat transfer must have been reached. This is known as heat death paradox. But since stars still exist and everywhere is not as hot as stars, then there is no way for the universe to be infinitely old.

Oga, before the big bang there was gravitational singularity where the universe becomes infinite.

tintingz:


You are Ignorant of abiogenesis and evolution, find time to read and understand the theory.

There is no way you can divorce abiogenesis from evolution because without abiogenesis, evolution cannot take place.

But abiogenesis is impossible because of the natural law of entropy.

Natural law of entropy simply says things get to be worsened when left to themselves. For example, a dead cell tends to decay and disintegrate as time passes by.

Now let assume that nature want to create the first living and self replicating cell from non living materials (abiogenesis).

Remember that non- living materials is no way different from dead cell because both are "dead" already.
In fact, dead cell is even higher in quality than non-living materials because some of the organelles (which are no where to be found in the non-living materials) may still be present in the dead cell.

Now this is where I am going; if natural law of entropy tends to cause the dead cell to decay and disintegrate ever more, then would such law of entropy allow the non-living materials to build up gradually until they reach the level of "dead cell"-let alone to the level of "living and self replicating cell"?

This is not the issue of the god of the gaps. Honestly, it is a matter of common sense if you really understand the simple English I wrote up there.

So till the end of the world, scientists would never solve the problem of abiogenesis because abiogenesis is impossible. Giving life to a dead is beyond the power of intelligent and conscious human beings. Yet atheists still believe that unintelligent and unconscious nature has done this miracle some billion of years ago.

And if abiogenesis is impossible in an atheistic world, then atheistic evolution has nothing to start with. This is how the theory of natural or atheistic evolution collapses right from its foundation!






Well, I have tried my best to convince you that God exist. But if you insist that God does not exist and you insist that atheism is true, then which of the following premises explained below is not true and state the reason why


PPREMISE 1: According to atheism, nature is all that exist; there is no any supernatural being.



PREMISE 2 : In the past, no part of nature can see, no part of nature can hear, no part of nature can speak, no part of nature can think, no part of nature can feel, no part of nature can know, no part of nature can move voluntarily.



PREMISE 3 : Follow from Premise 1, human beings that can see, that can hear, that can speak, that can think, that can feel, that can know, that can move voluntarily emerged from the same very nature without any external cause


PREMISE 4 : If both premise 2 and premise 3 are true, then nature has undergone a very drastic CHANGE without an external cause.



PREMISE 5 : But for anything to undergo a CHANGE, there must be a sufficient external cause.


OBJECTION ;

Why does a change in anything require an EXTERNAL cause and not internal ?


REPLY ;

If "all the necessary cause" require to trigger a change in an entity is INTERNAL (i:e already present inside the entity), then no change would be observed because the final state would always precede the initial state. Yet for a CHANGE to occur, the initial state must precede the final state.

For an illustration, let assume that three drops of an indicator (i:e all the necessary cause) is what is required to CHANGE the colour of an alkali from colourless to pink. That is to say, immediately I finished dropping the third drop, the color will suddenly change from colourless to pink. You will agree with me that "all the three drops" are EXTERNAL CAUSE (i:e outside the alkali). Now if all the three drops of indicator is already present inside the alkali right from the beginning of its production (INTERNAL CAUSE), then the initial color of the alkali would be pink. So "changing" from INITIAL (colourless) to FINAL (pink colour) would never occur because the final state has preceded the initial state (i:e the initial color of alkali is already pink instead of colorless). Therefore, for anything to undergo a CHANGE, there must be a sufficient EXTERNAL cause.


ANALYSIS :

Since Premise 5 is true, then Premise 4 must be wrong. And if Premise 4 is wrong, then both Premise 2 and Premise 3 cannot be true. But Premise 2 is perfectly true. Therefore, Premise 3 must be false.
Since Premise 3 follows from Premise 1, then Premise 1 must also be false. And if Premise 1 is false, then Atheism is not true.
Since atheism is not true, then follows from Premise 1, supernatural being must exist. This very supernatural being is what we called God.

Abdulgaffar22:


There is no way you can divorce abiogenesis from evolution because without abiogenesis, evolution cannot take place.

But abiogenesis is impossible because of the natural law of entropy.

Natural law of entropy simply says things get to be worsened when left to themselves. For example, a dead cell tends to decay and disintegrate as time passes by.

Now let assume that nature want to create the first living and self replicating cell from non living materials (abiogenesis).

Remember that non- living materials is no way different from dead cell because both are "dead" already.
In fact, dead cell is even higher in quality than non-living materials because some of the organelles (which are no where to be found in the non-living materials) may still be present in the dead cell.

Now this is where I am going; if natural law of entropy tends to cause the dead cell to decay and disintegrate ever more, then would such law of entropy allow the non-living materials to build up gradually until they reach the level of "dead cell"-let alone to the level of "living and self replicating cell"?

This is not the issue of the god of the gaps. Honestly, it is a matter of common sense if you really understand the simple English I wrote up there.

So till the end of the world, scientists would never solve the problem of abiogenesis because abiogenesis is impossible. Giving life to a dead is beyond the power of intelligent and conscious human beings. Yet atheists still believe that unintelligent and unconscious nature has done this miracle some billion of years ago.

And if abiogenesis is impossible in an atheistic world, then atheistic evolution has nothing to start with. This is how the theory of natural or atheistic evolution collapses right from its foundation!






Well, I have tried my best to convince you that God exist. But if you insist that God does not exist and you insist that atheism is true, then which of the following premises explained below is not true and state the reason why


PPREMISE 1: According to atheism, nature is all that exist; there is no any supernatural being.



PREMISE 2 : In the past, no part of nature can see, no part of nature can hear, no part of nature can speak, no part of nature can think, no part of nature can feel, no part of nature can know, no part of nature can move voluntarily.



PREMISE 3 : Follow from Premise 1, human beings that can see, that can hear, that can speak, that can think, that can feel, that can know, that can move voluntarily emerged from the same very nature without any external cause


PREMISE 4 : If both premise 2 and premise 3 are true, then nature has undergone a very drastic CHANGE without an external cause.



PREMISE 5 : But for anything to undergo a CHANGE, there must be a sufficient external cause.


OBJECTION ;

Why does a change in anything require an EXTERNAL cause and not internal ?


REPLY ;

If "all the necessary cause" require to trigger a change in an entity is INTERNAL (i:e already present inside the entity), then no change would be observed because the final state would always precede the initial state. Yet for a CHANGE to occur, the initial state must precede the final state.

For an illustration, let assume that three drops of an indicator (i:e all the necessary cause) is what is required to CHANGE the colour of an alkali from colourless to pink. That is to say, immediately I finished dropping the third drop, the color will suddenly change from colourless to pink. You will agree with me that "all the three drops" are EXTERNAL CAUSE (i:e outside the alkali). Now if all the three drops of indicator is already present inside the alkali right from the beginning of its production (INTERNAL CAUSE), then the initial color of the alkali would be pink. So "changing" from INITIAL (colourless) to FINAL (pink colour) would never occur because the final state has preceded the initial state (i:e the initial color of alkali is already pink instead of colorless). Therefore, for anything to undergo a CHANGE, there must be a sufficient EXTERNAL cause.


ANALYSIS :

Since Premise 5 is true, then Premise 4 must be wrong. And if Premise 4 is wrong, then both Premise 2 and Premise 3 cannot be true. But Premise 2 is perfectly true. Therefore, Premise 3 must be false.
Since Premise 3 follows from Premise 1, then Premise 1 must also be false. And if Premise 1 is false, then Atheism is not true.
Since atheism is not true, then follows from Premise 1, supernatural being must exist. This very supernatural being is what we called God.

Your replies are waste of my time.


I asked you a question, do you believe something can come out of nothing?

tintingz:
Your replies are waste of my time.


I asked you a question, do you believe something can come out of nothing?

No! Something cannot come out of nothing

Have you now agreed that atheistic evolution collapses right from its foundation based on the explanation given above ?

Abdulgaffar22:


No! Something cannot come out of nothing

So what's an independent first cause?

Again which of the five premises enumerated above is not true? state the reason why it is not true

Abdulgaffar22:
Have you now agreed that atheistic evolution collapses right from its foundation based on the explanation given above ?

What do you mean by atheistic evolution, is there anything of such nonsense?

Abdulgaffar22:
Again which of the five premises enumerated above is not true? state the reason why it is not true

Answer the question, what's an Independent first cause?

tintingz:
So what's an independent first cause?

Independent first cause is unchangeable God

tintingz:
What do you mean by atheistic evolution, is there anything of such nonsense?

I mean evolution taking place in absence of any supernatural being

Abdulgaffar22:


Independent first cause is unchangeable God

That came from nothing?

tintingz:
That came from nothing?

No! That is always existing

Abdulgaffar22:


I mean evolution taking place in absence of any supernatural being

Is there any evidence of this supernatural being?

Abdulgaffar22:


No! That is always existing

It's always existing out of nothing?

You claim God is an independent first cause which means it exist out of nothing, pop into existing by nothing, not created, not caused.

Now I'm asking again, can something exist without a cause?

tintingz:


Is there any evidence of this supernatural being?

If there is no any supernatural being, abiogenesis would never take place . So He must exist as a sufficient cause for abiogenesis

Abdulgaffar22:


If there is no any supernatural being, abiogenesis would never take place . So He must exist as a sufficient cause for abiogenesis

So you think something that triggers life must be supernatural and not natural or aliens?

tintingz:
It's always existing out of nothing?

You claim God is an independent first cause which means it exist out of nothing, pop into existing by nothing, not created, not caused.

Now I'm asking again, can something exist without a cause?

First do you really believe that something must be eternal (i:e always exist )

tintingz:
So you think something that triggers life must be supernatural and not natural or aliens?

Yes it must be supernatural. Aliens can still be class as supernatural

Abdulgaffar22:


First do you really believe that something must be eternal (i:e always exist )

If something is eternal then it has no cause!

You're being hypocritical in your argument. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You want me to believe God exist without a cause and then argue that something must cause something. You need to choose which is your argument, must something cause something or can something exist with a cause?

And besides, the universe can be eternal, the same logic that applies to your God can be applied to the universe.

Abdulgaffar22:


Yes it must be supernatural. Aliens can still be class as supernatural

Why must it be supernatural, any evidence to back this up?

We can't necessary classify aliens as supernatural since we haven't discover any, they can be as natural as every other living being maybe just more intelligent than we're or dumb.

tintingz:

If something is eternal then it has no cause!
You're being hypocritical in your argument. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You want me to believe God exist without a cause and then argue that something must cause something. You need to choose which is your argument, must something cause something or can something exist with a cause?
And besides, the universe can be eternal, the same logic that applies to your God can be applied to the universe.

Please read carefully to understand my points. I want to establish two facts;
Fact no 1; something must be eternal (either God or the universe)
Why ; If there is absolutely 'NOTHING' in the long past, then there is no way we can have 'SOMETHING' at this present time because something can NEVER come out from absolutely nothing. Therefore, something (either God or the universe) must be eternal i:e always exist and infinitely old.
Please have you cleared with this fact no 1 ?
Now how are we to know which one is eternal ? Is it universe that is eternal or is it God that is eternal ? This very question would be addressed by Fact no 2.

Fact no 2; It is only God that is eternal; universe is not eternal.
Why; anything that is ETERNAL (i:e something that is infinitely old) would not have a CHANGING characteristic.
Why; for anything to CHANGE, an external cause is required to trigger this change. But at the beginning, nothing exist except this ETERNAL entity. Therefore, there is no any external cause that can effect a change in this ETERNAL entity. Hence anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.
But the universe (or nature) has a CHANGING characteristic ; for example, no part of universe (or nature) can see, can hear, can speak in the past. But now some part of universe (human beings) can see, can hear, can speak different languages. Therefore, universe has undergone a drastic CHANGE.
From this we are able to deduce that universe (or nature) is not eternal. Therefore, only God is eternal because He is unchangeable.
In fact, this analysis is another proof for the existence of God. This is because we know from fact no 1 that "SOMETHING" must be eternal (either God or universe). Since universe is not eternal. Therefore, God must be eternal. Hence God must exist. It is this very God that created life from nonliving materials (abiogenesis) in the long past.

tintingz:

Why must it be supernatural, any evidence to back this up?

We can't necessary classify aliens as supernatural since we haven't discover any, they can be as natural as every other living being maybe just more intelligent than we're or dumb.

Only supernatural being can give life to the dead; if "intelligent and conscious human beings" failed completely to performed this miracle in a well-equiped laboratory, it would never be possible for "unintelligent and unconscious nature" to do the same miracle in a very poor laboratory in the long past. Therefore, it must be supernatural!

We are able to prove up there that universe(or nature) is not eternal. Therefore, If Aliens are part of the universe or (nature) then they must also began to exist just like human beings. Anything that began to exist can never perform the miracle of giving life to the dead except with the assistance of God. Therefore, if truly there are aliens that can give life to dead, then they must be eternal and supernatural just like God.

Abdulgaffar22:

Please read carefully to understand my points. I want to establish two facts;
Fact no 1; something must be eternal (either God or the universe)
Why ; If there is absolutely 'NOTHING' in the long past, then there is no way we can have 'SOMETHING' at this present time because something can NEVER come out from absolutely nothing. Therefore, something (either God or the universe) must be eternal i:e always exist and infinitely old.
Please have you cleared with this fact no 1 ?
Now how are we to know which one is eternal ? Is it universe that is eternal or is it God that is eternal ? This very question would be addressed by Fact no 2.

Fact no 2; It is only God that is eternal; universe is not eternal.
Why; anything that is ETERNAL (i:e something that is infinitely old) would not have a CHANGING characteristic.
Why; for anything to CHANGE, an external cause is required to trigger this change. But at the beginning, nothing exist except this ETERNAL entity. Therefore, there is no any external cause that can effect a change in this ETERNAL entity. Hence anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.
But the universe (or nature) has a CHANGING characteristic ; for example, no part of universe (or nature) can see, can hear, can speak in the past. But now some part of universe (human beings) can see, can hear, can speak different languages. Therefore, universe has undergone a drastic CHANGE.
From this we are able to deduce that universe (or nature) is not eternal. Therefore, only God is eternal because He is unchangeable.
In fact, this analysis is another proof for the existence of God. This is because we know from fact no 1 that "SOMETHING" must be eternal (either God or universe). Since universe is not eternal. Therefore, God must be eternal. Hence God must exist. It is this very God that created life from nonliving materials (abiogenesis) in the long past.

First of all there is nothing like fact when it comes to God and the origin of the universe, they are hypothesis not facts.

If something must be eternal then you're saying something can exist without a cause.

And like I said the universe can be eternal as some theories suggest, for example energy cannot be created nor destroyed, the universe contain energy therefore it has always been existing.

I haven't get your logic why the universe cannot exist without God, or why not tell me how the universe would be without God?

Only supernatural being can give life to the dead; if "intelligent and conscious human beings" failed completely to performed this miracle in a well-equiped laboratory, it would never be possible for "unintelligent and unconscious nature" to do the same miracle in a very poor laboratory in the long past. Therefore, it must be supernatural!

You haven't provide evidence for this supernatural and why must it be a being?

Why can't it be nature?

We are able to prove up there that universe(or nature) is not eternal.

Where did you prove that?

Therefore, If Aliens are part of the universe or (nature) then they must also began to exist just like human beings. Anything that began to exist can never perform the miracle of giving life to the dead. Therefore, if truly there are aliens that can give life to dead, then they must be eternal and supernatural just like God.

Lol, what if humans can give life to the dead in the future? What if we know how death works? Like I said your arguments are appeal to ignorance!

And FYI aliens can be from another dimension or another universe but not supernatural like you claim and not necessary eternal.

Not being eternal does not mean cause and effect cannot take place.

tintingz:


Where did you prove that?

.

This is how I prove that universe is not eternal;

Anything that is ETERNAL (i:e something that is infinitely old) would not have a CHANGING characteristic.
Why; for anything to CHANGE, an external cause is required to trigger this change. But at the beginning, nothing exist except this ETERNAL entity. Therefore, there is no any external cause that can effect a change in this ETERNAL entity. Hence anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.
But the universe (or nature) has a CHANGING characteristic ; for example, no part of universe (or nature) can see, can hear, can speak in the past. But now some part of universe (human beings) can see, can hear, can speak different languages. Therefore, universe has undergone a drastic CHANGE.
From this we are able to deduce that universe (or nature) is not eternal because universe has undergone a drastic change.


Pls which point do you think is wrong from what is written above. Bring out this point and state the reason why it is wrong

tintingz:


Why can't it be nature?

.

This is the reason why nature can never perform the miracle of Abiogenesis;


Abiogenesis is impossible for the "unconscious and unintelligent" nature because of the natural law of entropy.

Natural law of entropy simply says things get to be worsened when left to themselves. For example, a dead cell tends to decay and disintegrate as time passes by.

Now let assume that nature want to create the first living and self replicating cell from non living materials (abiogenesis).

Remember that non- living materials is no way different from dead cell because both are "dead" already.
In fact, dead cell is even higher in quality than non-living materials because some of the organelles (which are no where to be found in the non-living materials) may still be present in the dead cell.

Now this is where I am going; if natural law of entropy tends to cause the dead cell to decay and disintegrate ever more, then would such law of entropy allow the non-living materials to build up gradually until they reach the level of "dead cell"-let alone to the level of "living and self replicating cell"? Yes or No

If the answer is Yes, why