Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,525,744 members, 5,781,288 topics. Date: Monday, 10 August 2020 at 04:55 PM

Who Created God? - Religion (17) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Who Created God? (8328 Views)

What created God ? A Response To Atheist Question / Who Created God? - An Invalid Question / My Idea On Who Created God (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) ... (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Who Created God? by malvisguy212: 10:41am On Oct 09, 2019
shadeyinka:

On a hindsight I saw that you have actually answered my question in this post. So, I'm going to answer you.

Your Question:
How do you know concepts like logic, entropy and thermodynamics (the observables) apply beyond our observable universe?

Answer:
What we know is based strictly on our observations and experience of events, causes and effects within this present universe. Because of this, it is impossible to prove God using any means. We can only know God when we experience Him through events and circumstances we find ourselves in in relation to Him.

Logic may apply to some extent, arithmetics may still be true to some extent.

While we remain on earth however except by our experience we don't have any other suitable means of getting to an understanding of what we see as Truth.

Haven answered your question, the following facts follow:
1. It is impossible to prove God using Logic, Physics, Chemistry or any other natural law for if God is the First Cause our present knowledge is insufficient to grasp Him
2. It is therefore ridiculous to disprove the existence of God with any natural means of Logic, Physics, Chemistry etc.
3. Experience is the only way to know the reality of God even though experiences may be subjective and unconvincing to those outside the experience.
4. With the laws of Physics, Chemistry, Logic and Mathematics, the best we can do (in making meaning from issues) is to project our present realities into the past or future so as to be able to make a meaning of our present realities.


All the arguments on this thread had hinged on this item 4 if we decide to ignore item 1, 2 & 3. The difference between the two divides is those with experience of God AND those with no experience.

Finally:
Using item 4 as basis:
1. Every effect has a cause
2. Every cause has an effect
3. Infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible

This would mean either
a. Causes or Effects don't exist (which by our experience is untrue)
OR
b. Infinite regress of cause and effect is possible
Or
c. We have a conflicting Logic

An infinite regress of cause and effect is self contradictory because to take away the cause, no effect is possible or take away the effect and there is no cause. If there is no first cause there is no others.

Hence, Unless the rule is broken at least once at the beginning with a First Cause can 1 & 2 hold.

If you feel that another conclusion exist, please be my guest

On these hinged all my arguments using our present understanding of science and logic.


This is it for those who need "EVIDENCE" for a First Cause. Like I said earlier, the First Cause needn't be God. The First Cause could be a Thing or a Being. It is left for you to decide if the Uncaused First Cause is a Thing or a Being.

Denying the First Cause is rejecting the only argument that can lead to the discovery of the identity of the First Cause.
The Agnostics best argument is this to be "Based on my knowledge, I don't know if the First Cause is a Thing or a Being!"

Here, I rest my case.


Case close. I wholeheartedly agree with you. God bless you

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by kkins25(m): 10:49am On Oct 09, 2019
shadeyinka2:

Ok Sir.
But it is difficult describing God as a Spirit to skeptics and those who deliberately reject God. However, for the sake of education, here it is

you see my friend, when conversing with monikers like buda, you should read twice if not probably thrice before replying. buda is a notorious conman of words. he is like a colorful toad, attractive but poisonous.
let me elaborate, what is a spirit?
can this question actually be answered? the demon in you might be looking and laughing saying; "this shadeyinka no know anything self".
you have not seen a spirit in your life. prove me wrong.
the bible or any other religious book for that matter does not clearly define the nature of a spirit/God.

"
1. A Spirit is a non localized (not bound in space and time) Personality or Living Being with a non Physical body (Spirit Body). "
shade, if a spirit is not bound by time and space does that mean that God or any spirit can decide to re-live the past? can other spirits be in two places at the same time within the same dimension or multi dimension.
if what you define up there is indeed through then my friend wouldn't it seem ridiculous; God flooding the earth when he could simply rewind time.
i remember this same brouhaha with another devil of a wordsmith muttleylaff. can you shade elaborate what it means to not be bound by space?

2. A spirit being has the characteristics of Emotion, Will and Intellect and can change things in the spirit realm and sometimes in the physical.
what do you understand by the concept emotion? do you know my dear shade that i can feed you the seratonin hormone and you will feel a little bit more happy? if you sniff cocaine it might make you artificially happy? huh?
do you get the point i intend to make? no? of course not! so let me tell a tale of the nervous system.
shade dear, what you call emotion is simply the effect of inbalance in hormonal secretion of the body. im sure your familiar with serotonin, dopamine amongst numerous more; are responsible for all thing you call emotions

how can God feel emotion when he doesn't have a body regulated by hormones? what mechanism triggers his anger/love/jealousy,etc?

3. The Spirit realm is everywhere where spirit beings act and activities take place.

you know, my mind has always had a mind of its own. now its telling me to ask you even though i do not intend to bother you much- that do spirits float, glide or walk in this universe of thiers? do angels have legs, or do they primarily make use of wings powered by chicken feathers suggesting angels evolved from birds probably.
does angel gabrael visit angel micheal in his home? do angels talk about 'life'? do they talk about back pains and cholera outbreak too?

4. The spirit realm seems superimposed even on the Physical realm at a higher dimension.
ok.
5. There are unknown number of spirits in the universe. Examples of spirits include Angels, Demons and others
ok.
6. Even though humans are Physical beings, they have a Spirit components and the voice of their spirit is their conscience.
so tell me, which is the real governor amongst the two? those the body govern the spirit or does the spirit govern the body?
what makes you say humans have a spirit? does it have a mind of its own like my mind?

i am a lost soul who like the devil is trying to reconcile with daddy. kindly guide me to the right path. for years my spirit and i have searched for God but google isn't giving us what i want. my spirit has been serching using the less popular bing too. grin grin grin

7. God is a Spirit.
ok
He is the Uncaused First Cause!
couldnt there be a first cause in another dimension that God doesnt even know about
He is the source of all Spirits!
is he creating this spirits or is he diving himself into smaller fragments to sustatin life
He is the giver of Life and Consciousness!
He made everything seen and unseen!
how can God see when he doesnt have eyes?

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by budaatum: 10:53am On Oct 09, 2019
shadeyinka2:

Spiritually, the universe as we know it has an end.
Rev 21:1:
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."

But here, I speak not in light of this but in light of the Heat Death of the Universe.

The heat death of the universe, also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze,[1] is a conjecture on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe would evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and would therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
I think you mean, "It is written". See how wiki calls it "conjecture", as in 'guesswork'. Neither is worth believing, except when I argue for climate change.

Its a rather huge universe, evolving everyday. Its more likely humans die off than the universe stops existing, though our ability to learn and evolve should not be discounted, and who can tell what God has in store for us and it all so far in the future?

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by budaatum: 11:01am On Oct 09, 2019
kkins25:

you see my friend, when conversing with monikers like buda, you should read twice if not probably thrice before replying. buda is a notorious conman of words. he is like a colorful toad, attractive but poisonous.
By ones words is one known, and buda's are poison to the blind I find. Looking, even twice and thrice, they still do not see but make out they do.

1 Like

Re: Who Created God? by TheArranger(m): 2:22pm On Oct 09, 2019
shadeyinka:

What we know is based strictly on our observations....., it is impossible to prove God using any means. We can only know God when we experience Him through events
Personal experience is subjective, thus, useless

1. Every effect has a cause
2. Every cause has an effect
3. Infinite regress of cause is impossible. This would mean either
a. Causes or effects don't exist
I'm guessing "a" is the only possible conclusion based on your postulates

b. Infinite regress of cause and effect is possible
Violates postulate 3

c. We have a conflicting logic...
If this is the case, it means one (or more) of your postulates is false, but it does not tell you which one. Worse, infinite regresses are possible was not one of your postulates, so you will never be able to show that statement is false with this line of attack (proof by contradiction). It's a dead end.
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 3:00pm On Oct 09, 2019
kkins25:

you see my friend, when conversing with monikers like buda, you should read twice if not probably thrice before replying. buda is a notorious conman of words. he is like a colorful toad, attractive but poisonous.
let me elaborate, what is a spirit?
can this question actually be answered? the demon in you might be looking and laughing saying; "this shadeyinka no know anything self".
you have not seen a spirit in your life. prove me wrong.
the bible or any other religious book for that matter does not clearly define the nature of a spirit/God.
This I have written simply based on my subjective understanding of experiences and knowledge I've had with respect to my studies.

So, I don't have to prove nor justify anything. I can only explain if need be and if I have a little understanding of the "behind the scene"! There is no single human who understands completely the spirit realm: for we are more tuned to the Physical realm than the spiritual.


kkins25:

shade, if a spirit is not bound by time and space does that mean that God or any spirit can decide to re-live the past? can other spirits be in two places at the same time within the same dimension or multi dimension.
if what you define up there is indeed through then my friend wouldn't it seem ridiculous; God flooding the earth when he could simply rewind time.
i remember this same brouhaha with another devil of a wordsmith muttleylaff. can you shade elaborate what it means to not be bound by space?
By non localized in space:
What I mean is like several Spirits can occupy the same Physical volume (without a conflict). To explain it, several demons can inhabit the same one person.
By non localized in time:
They live in the realm where our local time is meaningless (doesn't exist). Living for a 10,000 years seems long to a person who measure time by the sun but if time doesn't exist, time is irrelevant.



kkins25:

what do you understand by the concept emotion? do you know my dear shade that i can feed you the seratonin hormone and you will feel a little bit more happy? if you sniff cocaine it might make you artificially happy? huh?
do you get the point i intend to make? no? of course not! so let me tell a tale of the nervous system.
shade dear, what you call emotion is simply the effect of inbalance in hormonal secretion of the body. im sure your familiar with serotonin, dopamine amongst numerous more; are responsible for all thing you call emotions
My understanding of emotion is more like the underlying operating system/software that runs in a living being (hardware). The chemicals such as dopamine etc are just components of the hardware of the person/personality.

There are two ways the brightness of a computer screen can be controlled
1. Through the hardware button
2. Through the Software program.
Even though you can influence the brightness of the screen through these two means, ultimately it's the software that controls the picture quality, pixel color, hue, saturation at any particular screen location etc.

That is why, once the software (Soul/Spirit) leaves a body, no amount of dopamine or serotonin will cause a response from the corpse. BTW, death is simply a Disconnection between the Body and Soul/Spirit


kkins25:

how can God feel emotion when he doesn't have a body regulated by hormones? what mechanism triggers his anger/love/jealousy,etc?
Our soul is like the living software responsible for our emotion. Dopamine or Serotonin are released into the physical body by the instruction of the soul for PHYSICAL EXPRESSION to manifest.

You'll agree that a person can be extremely angry yet look very cool. This is because a man isn't just chemicals but a Soul (Emotion, Will, Intellect)

Your body is not required for you to feel Emotion. Your Soul/Spirit is. Your body only expresses the inward Emotion outwardly.

kkins25:

you know, my mind has always had a mind of its own. now its telling me to ask you even though i do not intend to bother you much- that do spirits float, glide or walk in this universe of thiers? do angels have legs, or do they primarily make use of wings powered by chicken feathers suggesting angels evolved from birds probably.
does angel gabrael visit angel micheal in his home? do angels talk about 'life'? do they talk about back pains and cholera outbreak too?
Angels don't need wings to move, neither do they need legs. They can appear to humans in any suitable. There true form I doubt if human knows. No one knows really much about them apart from occasional experience a person can have with them.
I assume they should be social.

kkins25:

ok.
ok.
so tell me, which is the real governor amongst the two? those the body govern the spirit or does the spirit govern the body?
what makes you say humans have a spirit? does it have a mind of its own like my mind?
A human being seem to have two bodies.
1. A Physical Body
2. A Spiritual Body
These two are inter-connected with
3. A Soul

The Soul is the Governor of both the Physical and Spiritual Body.

The Soul is the center of Emotion, Intellect and Will (volition). It is also the "Self/Personal Identity" of an individual

The Body is the Physical Identity of an Individual
The Spirit is the Spiritual Identity of an Individual.
The Soul is

A person at any time t must have at least a Body.


kkins25:

i am a lost soul who like the devil is trying to reconcile with daddy. kindly guide me to the right path. for years my spirit and i have searched for God but google isn't giving us what i want. my spirit has been serching using the less popular bing too. grin grin grin

ok
couldnt there be a first cause in another dimension that God doesnt even know about
is he creating this spirits or is he diving himself into smaller fragments to sustatin life
how can God see when he doesnt have eyes?
I have given you my understanding (not necessarily the exact reality) of the spiritual.
No one fully comprehend such.

Could there be another First Cause that God doesn't know about?
You'll need to see God and ask for yourself
Is God creating spirits or dividing Himself to form other spirits?
I don't have a clue! You'll need to ask Him for yourself
How can God see when he doesnt have eyes
You seem to believe that there cannot be other senses other than for sight, sound, feel etc.

It's like an autonomous vehicle asking if humans have obstacle avoidance chip installed in them!?

The vehicles mimic us , not the other way round.
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 3:07pm On Oct 09, 2019
budaatum:

I think you mean, "It is written". See how wiki calls it "conjecture", as in 'guesswork'. Neither is worth believing, except when I argue for climate change.

Its a rather huge universe, evolving everyday. Its more likely humans die off than the universe stops existing, though our ability to learn and evolve should not be discounted, and who can tell what God has in store for us and it all so far in the future?
The theory ( I think) was arrived at from looking at the stars and concluding that every star would die at a point, become a black hole...and maximum entropy would occur much later.

God sustains the universe in any case. Despite the theories, the universe will not cease to exist. It could be recreated but most likely not totally dissipate away

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 3:08pm On Oct 09, 2019
budaatum:

By ones words is one known, and buda's are poison to the blind I find. Looking, even twice and thrice, they still do not see but make out they do.

You decided to give him a cryptic paragraph to chew!
LOL

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 3:42pm On Oct 09, 2019
TheArranger:

Personal experience is subjective, thus, useless


I'm guessing "a" is the only possible conclusion based on your postulates


Violates postulate 3


If this is the case, it means one (or more) of your postulates is false, but it does not tell you which one. Worse, infinite regresses are possible was not one of your postulates, so you will never be able to show that statement is false with this line of attack (proof by contradiction). It's a dead end.
Your bias is making you blind.

I have given all the possible solutions to the postulates.

POSTULATES:
1. Every effect has a cause
2. Every cause has an effect
3. Infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible

POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCE:
This would mean either
a. Causes or Effects don't exist
OR
b. Infinite regress of cause and effect is possible
Or
c. We have a conflicting Logic

Option a contradict our normal experience
Option b contradict our normal experience
Option c We have a conflicting Logic

The rest follow from here
Re: Who Created God? by kkins25(m): 3:58pm On Oct 09, 2019
[quote author=shadeyinka post=82983926]
This I have written simply based on my [b]subjective understanding [/b]of experiences and knowledge I've had with respect to my studies.
smiles.. thank you for your honesty. in other words what you're telling me is ; your 'subjective understanding' could have occured as a result of spiritual enlightenment or under the influence of a dopamine stimulator, eg marijuana, cocaine, alcohol. how do we know your sense receptors are not receiving false signals from the brain. schizophreniacs also see beings that other people dont see. as a matter of fact a schizophreniac can be in two places at the same time.

So, I don't have to prove nor justify anything. I can only explain if need be and if I have a little understanding of the "behind the scene"! There is no single human who understands completely the spirit realm: for we are more tuned to the Physical feather than the spiritual.
i also once had a certain experience with the most high. he showed me his space ship. it was there He said: "kkins my beloved son, your eyes have i opened in this kingdo that ye may also open the eyes of my sheep" God told me that everything in the bible was a twisted lie. Do you believe me?

By non localized in space:
What I mean is like several Spirits can occupy the same Physical volume (without a conflict). To explain it, several demons can inhabit the same one person.
indeed. this is of course from your inertial point of refrence. how you ever thought about what the demons are actually seeing? today we understand the universe better because we are starting to look not just from our frame of reference but we now wonder " if i was a molecule, how would the world appear to me". thoughts like this is what brought about special relativity(God bless einstein) and string theory. do the demons actually occupy the same space from their inertial frame of reference?

By non localized in time:
They live in the realm where our local time is meaningless (doesn't exist). Living for a 10,000 years seems long to a person who measure time by the sun but if time doesn't exist, time is irrelevant.
i remember the time when i was teaching my beloved students about time. it is simply to distinguish series of events as before an after isnt it? however those were ssce students, what about time to a scientist? the only time that time didnt exist was before the FIRST CAUSE. SO ARE U saying with your tail inbetween your legs or are you beating your chest - that spirit do not know time? if they dont know time then why did they sin against God some time ago? wink wink it is written that 10,000 years is like a year unto God; i see, but nonetheless time is time. spirits experience what we call a before and an after.



My understanding of emotion is more like the underlying operating system/software that runs in a living being (hardware). The chemicals such as dopamine etc are just components of the hardware of the person/personality.
well your understanding is thwarted. we can only tell when someone is angry by two ways,
1) observing behaviour
2) Scanning the brain.

There are two ways the brightness of a computer screen can be controlled
ok, im listening.
1. Through the hardware button


you've got it all wrong!! again.
the hardware buttons you think you are reffering to my friend are external factors. for example, like when i place a trade on gold yesterday and my account got wiped out.




2. Through the Software program.Even though you can influence the brightness of the screen through these two means, ultimately it's the software that controls the picture quality, pixel color, hue, saturation at any particular screen location etc.

the software you think you are reffering to is the pheripheral nervous system. the nervous system is stimulated which in turn causes increase secretion of a certain hormone(s) that match the type or intensity of the stimulant. however this is not always the case, just like muttleys yada excites kkins but annoys buda.


That is why, once the software (Soul/Spirit) leaves a body, no amount of dopamine or serotonin will cause a response from the corpse. BTW, death is simply a Disconnection between the Body and Soul/Spirit
nervous system please. what the hell is spirit and soul.



Our soul is like the living software responsible for our emotion. Dopamine or Serotonin are released into the physical body by the instruction of the soul for PHYSICAL EXPRESSION to manifest.

You'll agree that a person can be extremely angry yet look very cool. This is because a man isn't just chemicals but a Soul (Emotion, Will, Intellect)

Your body is not required for you to feel Emotion. Your Soul/Spirit is. Your body only expresses the inward Emotion outwardly.
no oga, a person who is angry looks cool because he has learnt to control his bodies response to hormonal stimuli. just like me when i resist cool cool.
in btw, come muttleylaff where is the thread you promised me on stimulating the centre of gravity huh?

Angels don't need wings to move, neither do they need legs. They can appear to humans in any suitable. There true form I doubt if human knows. No one knows really much about them apart from occasional experience a person can have with them.
I assume they should be social.
thank god you said a person. no one in the bible has describe seeing an angel in the form of a chichken have they?


A human being[b] seem[/b] to have two bodies.
1. A Physical Body
2. A Spiritual Body
seems? youre not even certain.

These two are inter-connected with
3. A Soul

The Soul is the Governor of both the Physical and Spiritual Body.
you mean the mind. which exist in no place other than the nervous system.

The Soul is the center of Emotion, Intellect and Will (volition). It is also the "Self/Personal Identity" of an individual
does alcohol affect the soul. cause i know it changes peoples character .


The Body is the Physical Identity of an Individual
The Spirit is the Spiritual Identity of an Individual.
The Soul is
A person is formed from the interplay of genetic and enviromental factors. nothing soul needed here

A person at any time t must have at least a Body.
I have given you my understanding (not necessarily the exact reality) of the spiritual.
No one fully comprehend such.

Could there be another First Cause that God doesn't know about?
You'll need to see God and ask for yourself
Is God creating spirits or dividing Himself to form other spirits?
I don't have a clue! You'll need to ask Him for yourself
How can God see when he doesnt have eyes
You seem to believe that there cannot be other senses other than for sight, sound, feel etc.


It's like an autonomous vehicle asking if humans have obstacle avoidance chip installed in them!?

The vehicles mimic us , not the other way round.


bleh,bleh,bleh
Re: Who Created God? by Nobody: 4:19pm On Oct 09, 2019
Allow me to come in here for a brief moment:
TheArranger:

Logic is by and large a human concept
Cc. Shadeyinka

TheArranger, Logic doesn't actually need a physical universe for its rules to apply since it is, in fact, an abstract construct. All that it needs is the existence of propositions with truth-values, and these are abstract entities.

As for the application of entropy and thermodynamics beyond the observable universe (this should interest you, shadeyinka), this, again is an active research topic in the field of cosmological physics, and as a corollary, the details thereof are questions remaining to be answered by said research. As an example of the sort of research being conducted, I point to you to this paper, which covers the analysis of thermodynamics in a particular braneworld setup, and this paper, which covers a more general examination of the operation of thermodynamic laws in braneworld physical setups. Now, shadeyinka if you can understand the content of those papers, you're doing pretty well, because those papers are describing cutting edge cosmological physics research, which takes us well into the realm of branches of mathematics that are understood by, at best, less than 1% of the population. Tell me, shadeyinka, can you handle the Ricci calculus in 26 dimensions? No? Neither can most of the posters here. Which is why we leave the requisite questions to those who can, and rely upon their expertise to answer them.

shadeyinka:

Answer:
What we know is based strictly on our observations and experience of events, causes and effects within this present universe. Because of this, it is impossible to prove God using any means. We can only know God when we experience Him through events and circumstances we find ourselves in in relation to Him.

Logic may apply to some extent, arithmetics may still be true to some extent.

While we remain on earth however except by our experience we don't have any other suitable means of getting to an understanding of what we see as Truth.
That's true, but we can also infer upon the god hypothesis, what we understand of human nature.

Do humans make up myths in order to control behavior? Yes! (I.e. Santa with kids)

Do humans make up mythical deities to explain certain phenomena? Yes! (The Greek and roman gods, in regards to natural phenomena, such as thunder, earthquakes and so fourth.

Do humans tell lies in order to gain advantages? Yes!

Is it in our nature, our very biological make up, to do whatever necessary to gain resources and climb hierarchical structures? A resounding yes!

Now add to that... is there any causal link that is not explained by natural laws? So far, none! Not even close.

Is there any objective evidence of the supernatural? No.

This isn't rocket science...

shadeyinka:
2. It is therefore ridiculous to disprove the existence of God with any natural means of Logic, Physics, Chemistry etc.
It's perfectly proper to reject assertions about such an entity, when those assertions are associated with consequences that are ridiculous in the light of scientific knowledge, or involve logical contradictions.

Furthermore, there are other elementary principles at work here. The first being that assertions do not equal fact, and attempting to present them as such is a violation of the proper rules of discourse. The second being that any entity about which we only have assertions and no data, can be safely disregarded, because such entities are indistinguishable from non-existent entities. Another issue centres upon the fact, that most of the assertions presented about a purported god-type entity, arise from mythologies, and adherence thereto on the part of supernaturalists, and mythologies are notoriously unreliable. The unreliability of mythologies arises from the presence therein of assertions that are untestable even in principle, let alone in practice, and the presence therein of assertions about the universe and its operation that are not merely plain, flat, wrong in the light of scientific knowledge, but fatuous and absurd in that light. As a corollary of those two fatal features of mythologies, their provenance as a purported source of "knowledge" is pretty much worthless.

Of course, a non-mythological candidate for the "god role", one that operates in accordance with known physics, or provides consistent and comprehensible extensions to known physics, will be rejected outright by supernaturalists, because such a candidate won't provide them with the infantile comforts they seek. Not least, because the concerns of any non-mythological god-type entity of this sort, will almost certainly have no connection at all to the concerns of the fatuous mythological gods. A god consonant with modern scientific knowledge, will almost certainly have concerns more akin to that of an experimental cosmologist, than the assorted narcissists and celestial dictators contained in human mythologies, and for that reason alone will provide supernaturalists with no satisfaction whatsoever. Instead, supernaturalists want a god that embodies their own inner, and frequently, darkest, desires - a god that subjects the favourite hate targets of the supernaturalists in question to eternal sadistic torture, and preens the egos of the supernaturalists in question. Right wing evangelicals in the US Bible Belt are merely the most floridly pathological in this regard, who want their god to be a cosmic Donald Trump.

Finally, another elementary principle at work here, pretty much tosses all the mythological candidates into the bin for another reason. Namely, that when scientists establish that testable natural processes are sufficient to account for and explain a given class of entities and interactions, supernatural entities become superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. This has already happened for vast classes of entities and interactions, including classes that the authors of mythologies knew nothing about, were incapable of even fantasising about, but which scientists have placed within usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of knowledge. The few, increasingly vanishingly small gaps remaining that are the subject of active research, offer no hope of a reversal of precedent, and appeal thereto is futile.

Moving on ...

shadeyinka:
With these sciences, the best we can do in establishing facts is to project our present realities into the past or future
And with that statement, you've just demonstrated your wholesale ignorance of scientific knowledge. I'll just let you have fun seeing how it's done properly in another post

Moving on again ...

shadeyinka:
Every effect has a cause
You appear to be unaware that quantum mechanics has pretty much destroyed classical causation. Indeed, said destruction of classical causation, is one of the reasons a particle physicist's job is sometimes extremely hard. See, for example, the hunt for the Higgs Boson.

Plus, the whole "first cause" garbage presumes in advance, the existence of an entity that violates the initial premise of the argument. That you appear not to understand this elementary concept, speaks volumes at this juncture. Even elementary students of philosophy understand this. Far from being a "proof" of an imaginary magic man, it's an exercise in "black is white" rhetorical gymnastics, and has nothing to do with any proper, rigorous application of the principles of logic. Though I don't find myself in the least surprised to see this sort of nonsense emanating from pedlars of apologetics, most of whom would not recognise rigour if it backed an M! Abrams main battle tank into their ribcages.

Indeed you should rest your case. You have NO idea what you're talking about! If you want to understand the epistemological limits of our understanding of the origins of the universe, go to a scientific website that deals with those topics.

Pretending an "I don't know" answer from atheists is some sort of validation for your unevidenced superstitious beliefs is fallacious, and dishonest.

You need to watch this video/

RELIGION MADE ME TALK LIKE AN IDIOT! cheesy grin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URr0O9aHW38&t=132s

3 Likes 3 Shares

Re: Who Created God? by budaatum: 4:23pm On Oct 09, 2019
shadeyinka:

You decided to give him a cryptic paragraph to chew!
LOL
So that looking he may not perceive, and hearing he may not understand, lest at any time he should be converted and his sins be forgiven.
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 4:40pm On Oct 09, 2019
budaatum:

So that looking he may not perceive, and hearing he may not understand, lest at any time he should be converted and his sins be forgiven.

That's a hard one
Re: Who Created God? by 0temSapien: 5:28pm On Oct 09, 2019
orisa37:
God forgive 0temSapien for he doesn't know what he's doing.
God doesn't get offended not to talk of forgiving. God is not human beings, but the totality of existence is God. So how can the totality of existence get angry or pick offence over an insignificant subset of it.
Re: Who Created God? by Ihedinobi3: 5:34pm On Oct 09, 2019
shadeyinka:

The theory ( I think) was arrived at from looking at the stars and concluding that every star would die at a point, become a black hole...and maximum entropy would occur much later.

God sustains the universe in any case. Despite the theories, the universe will not cease to exist. It could be recreated but most likely not totally dissipate away
About your second paragraph, you are right that the universe will not cease to exist, at least not indefinitely. But at the end of the Lord Jesus's Millennial reign, He will destroy the universe.

[7]But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
[10]But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
[11]Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
[12]looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
[13]But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

2 Peter 3:7,10-13 NASB

[11]Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.
[1]Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Revelation 20:11, 21:1 NASB

So, the universe will be destroyed. But it will be resurrected, just like we too will be. Re-creation is not a bad word to use to describe it, but it may be better to say Resurrection because the former word applies more to what God did in Genesis 1:3-31, and the latter word is more in tune with what the Lord does at the end of time: assigning eternal status to all things that had previously been temporal.

Having said that, if you can bear it, I would caution you about budaatum. He/she is not one of us. But do as you please in this matter.
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 5:45pm On Oct 09, 2019
[quote author=kkins25 post=82985443][/quote]
There exist no reason to justify anything. You asked questions. I have answered you. I didn't ask for you views or your interpretation of what I have said.

If you still have problems. Go and sleep.

Thanks
Re: Who Created God? by kkins25(m): 6:05pm On Oct 09, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:
Allow me to come in here for a brief moment:

Cc. Shadeyinka

after that beautiful, write up, this is the reply you get sabrina;
shadeyinka:

There exist no reason to justify anything. You asked questions. I have answered you. I didn't ask for you views or your interpretation of what I have said.

If you still have problems. Go and sleep.

Thanks

2 Likes

Re: Who Created God? by orisa37: 6:15pm On Oct 09, 2019
0temSapien:
God doesn't get offended not to talk of forgiving. God is not human beings, but the totality of existence is God. So how can the totality of existence get angry or pick offence over an insignificant subset of it.



The same God said, "If any part of you makes you sin, pluck it out of your Totality"
So I am begging God, The Totality of existence, not to plug you, out of the Totality.
Re: Who Created God? by 0temSapien: 6:56pm On Oct 09, 2019
orisa37:




The same God said, "If any part of you makes you sin, pluck it out of your Totality"
So I am begging God, The Totality of existence, not to plug you, out of the Totality.
God Almighty has never and will never make such statement. That impostor most be Jehovah or any of his ilks. Those guys are slowpoke aswear grin To even burst your bubble, anything in existence cannot fail to exist anymore. They only change form. That's the law of preservation of energy. cool
Re: Who Created God? by budaatum: 7:48pm On Oct 09, 2019
Ihedinobi3:

Having said that, if you can bear it, I would caution you about budaatum. He/she is not one of us. But do as you please in this matter.
This buda is becoming rather popular. Heed warnings left and right. Those who are against you are indeed not with you! I wonder if they can make you not use your own eyes and be blind like them.
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 9:03pm On Oct 09, 2019
XxSabrinaxX:
Allow me to come in here for a brief moment:

Cc. Shadeyinka

TheArranger, Logic doesn't actually need a physical universe for its rules to apply since it is, in fact, an abstract construct. All that it needs is the existence of propositions with truth-values, and these are abstract entities.

As for the application of entropy and thermodynamics beyond the observable universe (this should interest you, shadeyinka), this, again is an active research topic in the field of cosmological physics, and as a corollary, the details thereof are questions remaining to be answered by said research. As an example of the sort of research being conducted, I point to you to this paper, which covers the analysis of thermodynamics in a particular braneworld setup, and this paper, which covers a more general examination of the operation of thermodynamic laws in braneworld physical setups. Now, shadeyinka if you can understand the content of those papers, you're doing pretty well, because those papers are describing cutting edge cosmological physics research, which takes us well into the realm of branches of mathematics that are understood by, at best, less than 1% of the population. Tell me, shadeyinka, can you handle the Ricci calculus in 26 dimensions? No? Neither can most of the posters here. Which is why we leave the requisite questions to those who can, and rely upon their expertise to answer them.
If you checked back a little, you will discover that I have stopped trading the little commonly available knowledge of Physics and thermodynamics with you here because I saw that you read the same available information but your comprehension was pitiful. The next thing I got from you lot is to go and win my Nobel prize for physics.

I have thus stopped/limited the use of tools you probably can't understand for pure Logic. I know there is no Nobel prize for logic, therefore I am comfortable with this approach.

Even though I have said it several times
1. It is impossible to prove God with Science, Logic or mathematics.
2. I am not proving God for you.

I am simply establishing the fact that using our present understanding of logic a First Cause exist. Establishing this fact that the First Cause exist does not in anyway prove God. It only lead to a necessary consequence that the First cause is either a Thing or a Being.

XxSabrinaxX:

That's true, but we can also infer upon the god hypothesis, what we understand of human nature.

Do humans make up myths in order to control behavior? Yes! (I.e. Santa with kids)

Do humans make up mythical deities to explain certain phenomena? Yes! (The Greek and roman gods, in regards to natural phenomena, such as thunder, earthquakes and so fourth.

Do humans tell lies in order to gain advantages? Yes!

Is it in our nature, our very biological make up, to do whatever necessary to gain resources and climb hierarchical structures? A resounding yes!

There are many types and kinds of gods in the world, no doubt. Just like there are different kinds of money. The fact that over 195 different kinds of currencies in the world but only one is legal tender in Nigeria. Each of these currencies have several counterfeits but this fact doesn't make the CBN Naira fake. So also with the gods in this world. The existence of different or counterfeit god's is not a good reason for disbelief.



XxSabrinaxX:

Now add to that... is there any causal link that is not explained by natural laws? So far, none! Not even close.

Is there any objective evidence of the supernatural? No.



This isn't rocket science...


It's perfectly proper to reject assertions about such an entity, when those assertions are associated with consequences that are ridiculous in the light of scientific knowledge, or involve logical contradictions.
Just a question:
Let's assume that God the creator exist, He must have been existing before the formation of the universe.

How do you know that natural laws as we know it is valid before the creation of the universe?

From your answer deduce how Logical it is to depend on current Physical laws as a final proof and objective evidence for proving or negating the reality of God.


XxSabrinaxX:

Furthermore, there are other elementary principles at work here. The first being that assertions do not equal fact, and attempting to present them as such is a violation of the proper rules of discourse. The second being that any entity about which we only have assertions and no data, can be safely disregarded, because such entities are indistinguishable from non-existent entities. Another issue centres upon the fact, that most of the assertions presented about a purported god-type entity, arise from mythologies, and adherence thereto on the part of supernaturalists, and mythologies are notoriously unreliable. The unreliability of mythologies arises from the presence therein of assertions that are untestable even in principle, let alone in practice, and the presence therein of assertions about the universe and its operation that are not merely plain, flat, wrong in the light of scientific knowledge, but fatuous and absurd in that light. As a corollary of those two fatal features of mythologies, their provenance as a purported source of "knowledge" is pretty much worthless.

Of course, a non-mythological candidate for the "god role", one that operates in accordance with known physics, or provides consistent and comprehensible extensions to known physics, will be rejected outright by supernaturalists, because such a candidate won't provide them with the infantile comforts they seek. Not least, because the concerns of any non-mythological god-type entity of this sort, will almost certainly have no connection at all to the concerns of the fatuous mythological gods. A god consonant with modern scientific knowledge, will almost certainly have concerns more akin to that of an experimental cosmologist, than the assorted narcissists and celestial dictators contained in human mythologies, and for that reason alone will provide supernaturalists with no satisfaction whatsoever. Instead, supernaturalists want a god that embodies their own inner, and frequently, darkest, desires - a god that subjects the favourite hate targets of the supernaturalists in question to eternal sadistic torture, and preens the egos of the supernaturalists in question. Right wing evangelicals in the US Bible Belt are merely the most floridly pathological in this regard, who want their god to be a cosmic Donald Trump.

Finally, another elementary principle at work here, pretty much tosses all the mythological candidates into the bin for another reason. Namely, that when scientists establish that testable natural processes are sufficient to account for and explain a given class of entities and interactions, supernatural entities become superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. This has already happened for vast classes of entities and interactions, including classes that the authors of mythologies knew nothing about, were incapable of even fantasising about, but which scientists have placed within usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of knowledge. The few, increasingly vanishingly small gaps remaining that are the subject of active research, offer no hope of a reversal of precedent, and appeal thereto is futile.

Moving on ...
Everyone has a right to his/her belief about this. If wishes were horses, even the begers will ride. Unfortunately, believes doesn't translate to truth or reality.

There is no need to argue over this: it's an opinion.


XxSabrinaxX:

And with that statement, you've just demonstrated your wholesale ignorance of scientific knowledge. I'll just let you have fun seeing how it's done properly in another post

Moving on again ...


You appear to be unaware that quantum mechanics has pretty much destroyed classical causation. Indeed, said destruction of classical causation, is one of the reasons a particle physicist's job is sometimes extremely hard. See, for example, the hunt for the Higgs Boson.
Even though I've decided not to talk again before you say I should apply for Nobel prize in physics.

It's just that you do COPY-PASTE without bothering to comprehend that which you just lifted.

In classical physics, an effect cannot occur before its cause. In Einstein's theory of special relativity, causality means that an effect can not occur from a cause that is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause cannot have an effect outside its front (future) light cone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

In simple terms, what it means is that in quantum mechanics, it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one.

No quantum physics does not disprove causality, which is not the same thing as determinism. There is no experiment that disproves the principle of causality if you know, let's have it.


XxSabrinaxX:

Plus, the whole "first cause" garbage presumes in advance, the existence of an entity that violates the initial premise of the argument. That you appear not to understand this elementary concept, speaks volumes at this juncture. Even elementary students of philosophy understand this. Far from being a "proof" of an imaginary magic man, it's an exercise in "black is white" rhetorical gymnastics, and has nothing to do with any proper, rigorous application of the principles of logic. Though I don't find myself in the least surprised to see this sort of nonsense emanating from pedlars of apologetics, most of whom would not recognise rigour if it backed an M! Abrams main battle tank into their ribcages.

Indeed you should rest your case. You have NO idea what you're talking about! If you want to understand the epistemological limits of our understanding of the origins of the universe, go to a scientific website that deals with those topics.

Pretending an "I don't know" answer from atheists is some sort of validation for your unevidenced superstitious beliefs is fallacious, and dishonest.

You need to watch this video/

RELIGION MADE ME TALK LIKE AN IDIOT! cheesy grin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URr0O9aHW38&t=132s

POSTULATES:
1. Every effect has a cause
2. Every cause has an effect
3. Infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible

POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCE:
This would mean either
a. Causes or Effects don't exist
OR
b. Infinite regress of cause and effect is possible
Or
c. We have a conflicting Logic

Option a contradict our normal experience
Option b contradict our normal experience
Option c We have a conflicting Logic

Follow the rabbit hole!

1 Like 1 Share

Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 9:07pm On Oct 09, 2019
Ihedinobi3:

About your second paragraph, you are right that the universe will not cease to exist, at least not indefinitely. But at the end of the Lord Jesus's Millennial reign, He will destroy the universe.

[7]But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
[10]But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
[11]Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
[12]looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
[13]But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

2 Peter 3:7,10-13 NASB

[11]Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.
[1]Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Revelation 20:11, 21:1 NASB

So, the universe will be destroyed. But it will be resurrected, just like we too will be. Re-creation is not a bad word to use to describe it, but it may be better to say Resurrection because the former word applies more to what God did in Genesis 1:3-31, and the latter word is more in tune with what the Lord does at the end of time: assigning eternal status to all things that had previously been temporal.

Having said that, if you can bear it, I would caution you about budaatum. He/she is not one of us. But do as you please in this matter.
I do very well agree with you. A new heaven and a new earth.
I understand your last paragraph!
Re: Who Created God? by TheArranger(m): 5:36am On Oct 10, 2019
shadeyinka:

Your bias is making you blind.

I have given all the possible solutions to the postulates.

POSTULATES:
1. Every effect has a cause
2. Every cause has an effect
3. Infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible
I think it is you who is letting bias cloud your judgement. You have formed a contradiction with those postulations. As I said, that means one (or more) of the postulates is false. But any of those 3 being false seems fatal to your whole arguments because you've been insisting they are true. It appears you have shot both of your legs off and have nothing to stand on.

I'm guessing postulate 3 should have read: An infinite regress of cause and effect is possible. That way, when (or if) you reach a contradiction, it would be tempting to go back and claim that the new postulate 3 must be false thereby reaching the conclusion i think you want to reach: the impossibility of infinite regress.
Re: Who Created God? by orisa37: 5:53am On Oct 10, 2019
0temSapien:
God Almighty has never and will never make such statement. That impostor most be Jehovah or any of his ilks. Those guys are slowpoke aswear grin To even burst your bubble, anything in existence cannot fail to exist anymore. They only change form. That's the law of preservation of energy. cool



Thinking good is of God and is Wisdom. To change in form is positive and is the Nature of The Son of Man. His natural Negatives empowered Him to be Heir to The Throne of Grace. That Impostor preserved energy that empowered Him to Resurrect to become The Son of God and The Supreme Spirit.

Do you know that the Atheists don't think at all?
Re: Who Created God? by TheArranger(m): 5:54am On Oct 10, 2019
SHADEYINKA

There are other ways to resolve your "contradiction" too, namely the possibility of postulates 1 & 2 being false
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 6:40am On Oct 10, 2019
TheArranger:

I think it is you who is letting bias cloud your judgement. You have formed a contradiction with those postulations. As I said, that means one (or more) of the postulates is false. But any of those 3 being false seems fatal to your whole arguments because you've been insisting they are true. It appears you have shot both of your legs off and have nothing to stand on.

I'm guessing postulate 3 should have read: An infinite regress of cause and effect is possible. That way, when (or if) you reach a contradiction, it would be tempting to go back and claim that the new postulate 3 must be false thereby reaching the conclusion i think you want to reach: the impossibility of infinite regress.
Taking that option where an infinite regress is possible will resolve the logic problem but contradict normal reality. The reality is that infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible
Re: Who Created God? by shadeyinka(m): 7:03am On Oct 10, 2019
TheArranger:
SHADEYINKA

There are other ways to resolve your "contradiction" too, namely the possibility of postulates 1 & 2 being false
That is true but does it represent reality?
Re: Who Created God? by MuttleyLaff: 7:24am On Oct 10, 2019
kkins25:
you see my friend, when conversing with monikers like buda, you should read twice if not probably thrice before replying. buda is a notorious conman of words. he is like a colorful toad, attractive but poisonous.
You cracked me up yesterday, leaving me bursting out in laughter on the public walkway reading this comment and especially the last sentence above. Can I borrow using the phrase "buda is a notorious conman of words. He is like a colorful toad, attractive but poisonous," Wow. You dont worry, as I will credit you as the originator of the phrase if/whenever I get to re-use it

kkins25:
let me elaborate, what is a spirit?
can this question actually be answered? the demon in you might be looking and laughing saying; "this shadeyinka no know anything self".
you have not seen a spirit in your life. prove me wrong.
the bible or any other religious book for that matter does not clearly define the nature of a spirit/God.
"Angels only take human forms when on assignment from God. Except being on official assignment, celestial beings never take on form that look or resembles human beings. This is part of the reasons, why no one has ever seen physically Satan or seen a demon. I repeat that only human beings were given the mandate to procreate, never celestial beings also known as angels."
- Re: Who Said Angels Don't Have Sexual Feelings? by MuttleyLaff: 12:43pm On Feb 09

Unless a spirit is sent on an official assignment by God to one, one will never ever physically see the spirit. Though spirits might be about where one is, one will never ever physically with eye natural vision see such spirits, except a type of 2 Kings 6:17 "O LORD, please open his eyes that he may see" Elisha prayer is answered

kkins25:
shade, if a spirit is not bound by time and space does that mean that God...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb8KZps4woA
Those arent brothers in the above video, that's one person, that is Agent Smith, from the film Matrix
Just look at that kkins25! Beautiful isnt it? That's child play for God to do, meaning easy for God to do more than one place at the same time within the same dimension or multi dimension

kkins25, did you see how Agent Smith was multiplying? Did you watch him being in more than one place at the same time within the same dimension, hmm?
Is it far fetch or difficult to believe, that God can do more and better than multiplying Himself like done by Agent Smith, in that sci-fi film, erhn? Is it something hard for God to as well do, huh?

kkins25:
or any spirit can decide to re-live the past? can other spirits be in two places at the same time within the same dimension or multi dimension.
"“Where have you come from?” the LORD asked Satan. Satan answered the LORD, “I have been patrolling the earth, watching everything that’s going on.”"
- Job 1:7

"As I was praying, Gabriel, (i.e. angel) whom I had seen in the earlier vision, came swiftly to me at the time of the evening sacrifice"
- Daniel 9:21

As far as, I am aware, two places at the same time within the same dimension or multi dimension, is an exclusive right of only one particular Spirit alone, and tha happens to mean, only God alone, can pull this kind of stunt.

Spirits, also known as celestial beings and/or angels, who can fly faster than the speed of light and so be anywhere at the drop of the hat (i.e. as noted in Job 1:7 and Daniel 9:21 above)

kkins25:
if what you define up there is indeed through then my friend wouldn't it seem ridiculous; God flooding the earth when he could simply rewind time.
Rewinding time, isnt just like that going to solve the existing problem kkins25. Sweeping things under the carpet, just isnt to fix or address the existing problems kkins25 and you know that

kkins25:
i remember this same brouhaha with another devil of a wordsmith muttleylaff. can you shade elaborate what it means to not be bound by space?
You would have been correct and right if you had said or used "another eudaemon, eudaimon or eudemon of a wordsmith MuttleyLaff" You're a smart guy, so I am sure you'll go figure that out what eudaemon, eudaimon or eudemon is, lol

kkins25:
what do you understand by the concept emotion? do you know my dear shade that i can feed you the seratonin hormone and you will feel a little bit more happy? if you sniff cocaine it might make you artificially happy? huh?
do you get the point i intend to make? no? of course not! so let me tell a tale of the nervous system.
shade dear, what you call emotion is simply the effect of inbalance in hormonal secretion of the body. im sure your familiar with serotonin, dopamine amongst numerous more; are responsible for all thing you call emotions

how can God feel emotion when he doesn't have a body regulated by hormones? what mechanism triggers his anger/love/jealousy,etc?
"The place where they serve is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary, just as Moses was warned by God as he was about to complete the tabernacle. For he says, "See that you make everything according to the design shown to you on the mountain."
- Hebrews 8:5

kkins25, I am sure you are aware that everything or earth is an image and likeness of what is in the Godhood. God doesnt need a physical body to feel the real and original emotion kkins25, is the point being made. OK?

kkins25:
you know, my mind has always had a mind of its own. now its telling me to ask you even though i do not intend to bother you much- that do spirits float, glide or walk in this universe of thiers? do angels have legs, or do they primarily make use of wings powered by chicken feathers suggesting angels evolved from birds probably.
does angel gabrael visit angel micheal in his home? do angels talk about 'life'? do they talk about back pains and cholera outbreak too?
They take on human form, as in appear looking human beings when making visitations

kkins25:
so tell me, which is the real governor amongst the two? those the body govern the spirit or does the spirit govern the body?
what makes you say humans have a spirit? does it have a mind of its own like my mind?
I have shed some light on this quite a few times, but time isnt an ally. I am already as it is, late in stepping out, so watch this space kkins25, I will revist this section, possibly later on today, like in the late PM

kkins25:
i am a lost soul who like the devil is trying to reconcile with daddy. kindly guide me to the right path. for years my spirit and i have searched for God but google isn't giving us what i want. my spirit has been serching using the less popular bing too. grin grin grin
You need a broken spirit in addition to a broken and contrite heart. When I make the revisit, you'll get a clearer picture of what all this means, so again I'll advise to watch this space kkkins25 I've got you bud, I have your back buddy.

kkins25:
couldnt there be a first cause in another dimension that God doesnt even know about
is he creating this spirits or is he diving himself into smaller fragments to sustatin life
Nah, sorry. Like it or lump it, God is Omniscient, remember

kkins25:
how can God see when he doesnt have eyes?
One doesnt need physical eyes to see all things now kkins25. C'mon, whats the matter with you man.
Re: Who Created God? by Nobody: 11:21am On Oct 11, 2019
So,... XxSabrinaxX got banned for... no reason apparently sad. Also I really need to come online more often. Good to see the thread hasn't gone too far. In the meantime, I'll just book the next space for me to post when i'm ready grin
Re: Who Created God? by Nobody: 11:23am On Oct 11, 2019
BOOKED!!!

(1) (2) (3) ... (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (Reply)

Pay Your Tithe Or Save A Relative's Life? / Why Does God Refer To Himself In The Plural In Genesis 1:26 And 3:22? / Which Came First...christianity Or Islam?

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2020 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 557
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.