LordReed:


But this is exactly what I said, you are attributing occurrences in the universe to a god, even though we see no direct evidence of a god doing any of these things you mentioned.

Wrong! By that statement "we see no direct evidence", that is where you got it wrong. Remember I said God can be PERCEIVED INDIRECTLY by his creation (Romans 1:20). I never said I was going to prove God directly, because the substance God is made from is beyond his physical creation which is the entire universe. I am explaining God's power in creation as can be PERCEIVED indirectly.

That statement at Romans 1: 20 follows logical scientific principles.

needanswer:


Wrong! By that statement "we see no direct evidence", that is where you got it wrong. Remember I said God can be PERCEIVED INDIRECTLY by his creation (Romans 1:20). I never said I was going to prove God directly, because the substance God is made from is beyond his physical creation which is the entire universe. I am explaining God's power in creation as can be PERCEIVED indirectly.

That statement at Romans 1: 20 follows logical scientific principles.

I am not seeing the difference between "we see no direct evidence " and "we perceive it indirectly". Enlighten me.

LordReed:


I am not seeing the difference between "we see no direct evidence " and "we perceive it indirectly". Enlighten me.

Romans 1: 20 is the basis that follows the scientific logic that what can be perceived indirectly is a fact.

There points to the fact that "God's invisible qualities like power, wisdom, justice and love and his Godship can be PERCEIVED from his creation".

needanswer:


Romans 1: 20 is the basis that follows the scientific logic that what can be perceived indirectly is a fact.

There points to the fact that "God's invisible qualities like power, wisdom, justice and love and his Godship can be PERCEIVED from his creation".

What is clear is that these things you are pointing to are not god hence the indirectly. There is no difference between not directly and indirectly.

LordReed:


What is clear is that these things you are pointing to are not god hence the indirectly. There is no difference between not directly and indirectly.

These things are not God and never would be God but they point to his existence indirectly because everything God worked on he put his dominant qualities into it; his love, his power, his wisdom and his justice. They paint a mosaic about the designer and his attributes.

Of course, there is a difference between directly and indirectly. As with most living and non-living things in the physical universe, we examine their formation retrospectively, which is why what we know about them are indirect.

needanswer:



These things are not God and never would be God but they point to his existence indirectly because everything God worked on he put his dominant qualities into it; his love, his power, his wisdom and his justice. They paint a mosaic about the designer and his attributes.

Of course, there is a difference between directly and indirectly. As with most living and non-living things in the physical universe, we examine their formation retrospectively, which is why what we know about them are indirect.

I didn't say directly, I said not directly. There is no difference between not directly and indirectly. But let's move on. How do we know to attribute these occurrences to a god since we cannot see the god doing any of them?

LordReed:


I didn't say directly, I said not directly. There is no difference between not directly and indirectly. But let's move on. How do we know to attribute these occurrences to a god since we cannot see the god doing any of them?

Hebrews 3: 4 gives the answer when it states that "of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God."

To add meaning to Hebrews 3:4 consider man made objects. Hebrews 3:4 uses a "house" as the man made object that has been constructed. When we see a beautifully constructed house, not just in design but in functionality, what is our LOGICAL CONCLUSION?

We conclude that someone constructed it, someone put in HIS WISDOM, HIS POWER, HIS LOVE ( if it holds special sentiments to him) and HIS JUSTICE (it must follow legal proceedings to get a permit) etc into its construction.

What if we see this beautiful building in the middle of a desert, a forest, the bottom of the ocean or even in outer space, like in the planet Mars or any other planet, what will be our conclusion?

Logically we will still arrive at that same conclusion, SOMEONE CONSTRUCTED it there.

It's location would not be important, neither will our INABILITY to DIRECTLY SEE the CONSTRUCTION PROCESS or THE CONSTRUCTOR.

Now that's explaining a part of Hebrews 3: 4. Things in nature are much much complex than even a sophisticated building or other man made things, they require complex laws to understand them, they operate in ways our brains cannot physically reproduce or replicate. Whether minute or gigantic they are outstanding. As the later part of Hebrews 3:4 points out, the constructor of those things is God.

needanswer:


Hebrews 3: 4 gives the answer when it states that "of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God."

To add meaning to Hebrews 3:4 consider man made objects. Hebrews 3:4 uses a "house" as the man made object that has been constructed. When we see a beautifully constructed house, not just in design but in functionality, what is our LOGICAL CONCLUSION?

We conclude that someone constructed it, someone put in HIS WISDOM, HIS POWER, HIS LOVE ( if it holds special sentiments to him) and HIS JUSTICE (it must follow legal proceedings to get a permit) etc into its construction.

What if we see this beautiful building in the middle of a desert, a forest, the bottom of the ocean or even in outer space, like in the planet Mars or any other planet, what will be our conclusion?

Logically we will still arrive at that sameconclusion, SOMEONE CONSTRUCTED it there.

It's location would not be important, neither will our INABILITY to DIRECTLY SEE the CONSTRUCTION PROCESS or THE CONSTRUCTOR.

Now that's explaining a part of Hebrews 3: 4. Things in nature are much much complex than even a sophisticated building or other man made things, they require complex laws to understand them, they operate in ways our brains cannot physically reproduce or replicate. Whether minute or gigantic they are outstanding. As the later part of Hebrews 3:4 points out, the constructor of those things is God.

We attribute buildings to someone because we already know that buildings are not naturally occurring. How do attribute the universe to a god when we have never seen the god doing anything? In fact we have never seen a god make anything so how can we know a god made anything?

LordReed:


We attribute buildings to someone because we already know that buildings are not naturally occurring. How do attribute the universe to a god when we have never seen the god doing anything? In fact we have never seen a god make anything so how can we know a god made anything?

You responded quickly though and may have missed a point or two in my other response. Heb 3:4 gives a visual comparison between the complex design of man and how those complex designs could not spring up on their own unless someone designed it. It also shows that it would be logical to conclude someone constructed it, whether we see the person or not because that man made design is complex in it self.

Nature and the universe in comparison is much more complex and beautiful than any man made designs, which leads to a constructor which is God - Hebrews 3:4

needanswer:


You responded quickly though and may have missed a point or two in my other response. Heb 3:4 gives a visual comparison between the complex design of man and how those complex designs could not spring up on their own unless someone designed it. It also shows that it would be logical to conclude someone constructed it, whether we see the person or not because that man made design is complex in it self.

Nature and the universe in comparison is much more complex and beautiful than any man made designs, which leads to a constructor which is God - Hebrews 3:4

Complexity is not the hallmark of design so that something is complex doesn't mean it is designed. Besides you didn't answer the question. We have never seen a god doing anything how then do we know it is a god, why not a universe creating machine or universe farting pixies? What makes you say it was a god that did it?

LordReed:


Complexity is not the hallmark of design so that something is complex doesn't mean it is designed. Besides you didn't answer the question. We have never seen a god doing anything how then do we know it is a god, why not a universe creating machine or universe farting pixies? What makes you say it was a god that did it?

Complexity is the hall mark of design. It is supported by science. It is believed that the more complicated tools a specie can fashion, the higher it's reasoning.

A higher reasoning being can thus make even better designs. All over the earth, man makes the best designs of any of the species alive on earth, either as software or hardware or other man made objects. These designs are so complicated that you need manuals to operate them or you need to attend a school to operate them or even need to get a degree to operate them.

We have seen the universe, it is not conscious, nothing about it tells us that it itself has life or can think to create life.

needanswer:


Complexity is the hall mark of design. It is supported by science. It is believed that the more complicated tools a specie can fashion, the higher it's reasoning.

A higher reasoning being can thus make even better designs. All over the earth, man makes the best designs of any of the species alive on earth, either as software or hardware or other man made objects. These designs are so complicated that you need manuals to operate them or you need to attend a school to operate them or even need to get a degree to operate them.

We have seen the universe, it is not conscious, nothing about it tells us that it itself has life or can think to create life.

When designing something the goal is not usually to make it as complex as possible but as simple as possible.

We have seen that the universe though not conscious, works in ways that need no conscious input. It doesn't need to be thinking to function it just goes on working. We see nothing indicative of any god at work anywhere to able to say a god this or that. The only reason you seem to be giving is you think it's a god that did it because you think it couldn't have arisen by itself.

LordReed:


When designing something the goal is not usually to make it as complex as possible but as simple as possible.

We have seen that the universe though not conscious, works in ways that need no conscious input. It doesn't need to be thinking to function it just goes on working. We see nothing indicative of any god at work anywhere to able to say a god this or that. The only reason you seem to be giving is you think it's a god that did it because you think it couldn't have arisen by itself.

In your first statement you are confusing the complexity of design from a designers end and the ease of use from the users end.

They are both different. From the designers end his invention is usually complicated. Eg a software like Instagram or nairaland or coding languages. It's more difficult and complex to create them than it is to use them. The examples of complex man made designs are much, so let me not go further. As for ease of use, it varies in complexity, from the operation of the space station (very complex), to an aeroplane( very complex), to a car (complex), to a software( may be complex to simple) etc.

The question you raised is, can the universe be what created itself? and I pointed out that from observation the universe isn't conscious, as such it cannot make itself, neither can it make other lives.

The universe is just like a gigantic system running on autopilot, like every system running on autopilot, it was placed in that state by someone.

needanswer:


In your first statement you are confusing the complexity of design from a designers end and the ease of use from the users end.

They are both different. From the designers end his invention is usually complicated. Eg a software like Instagram or nairaland or coding languages. It's more difficult and complex to create them than it is to use them. The examples of complex man made designs are much, so let me not go further. As for ease of use, it varies in complexity, from the operation of the space station (very complex), to an aeroplane( very complex), to a car (complex), to a software( may be complex to simple) etc.

The question you raised is, can the universe be what created itself? and I pointed out that from observation the universe isn't conscious, as such it cannot make itself, neither can it make other lives.

The universe is just like a gigantic system running on autopilot, like every system running on autopilot, it was placed in that state by someone.

A programmer will not deliberately make a program complex because then they'd be introducing more points of failure. They'd will try to maintain simplicity.

How do you know it was a someone and not a something? How do you know the someone is a god and not just a mason in a universe building company?

LordReed:


A programmer will not deliberately make a program complex because then they'd be introducing more points of failure. They'd will try to maintain simplicity.

How do you know it was a someone and not a something? How do you know the someone is a god and not just a mason in a universe building company?

Yeah they will try to keep it "SIMPLE", that simple is a figure of speech. It usually is complicated, it takes years to learn and perfect and that doesn't guarantee you will be a good programmer, many have fallen off the road! That is why their skill set is not easy to replicate until you go and learn those "SIMPLE" coding languages yourself and make an even simple software.

The someone or something has to be a conscious being more powerful and far superior to anything found in the universe, it must be colossal!

Hebrews 3:4 tells me it is God.

needanswer:


Yeah they will try to keep it "SIMPLE", that simple is a figure of speech. It usually is complicated, it takes years to learn and perfect and that doesn't guarantee you will be a good programmer, many have fallen off the road! That is why their skill set is not easy to replicate until you go and learn those "SIMPLE" coding languages yourself and make an even simple software.

The someone or something has to be a conscious being more powerful and far superior to anything found in the universe, it must be colossal!

Hebrews 3:4 tells me it is God.

How did the Hebrew author know it was god?

LordReed:


How did the Hebrew author know it was god?

That's a deeper topic, moving slightly away from how creation points to to creator indirectly.

To understand this part, you have to come at it with a fresh perspective. Of cause you will have questions and ask questions but don't assume anything I havent categorically said or mentioned until I do.

needanswer:


That's a deeper topic, moving slightly away from how creation points to to creator indirectly.

To understand this part, you have to come at it with a fresh perspective. Of cause you will have questions and ask questions but don't assume anything I havent categorically said or mentioned until I do.

It's the very question I have been asking you, how do you know it is god since you say you have indirect evidence but you shifted it unto the author of Hebrews by saying Hebrews 3:4 informed you. By inference you imply that author knows the answer and by extension you. So I still wait for the answer.

LordReed:


It's the very question I have been asking you, how do you know it is god since you say you have indirect evidence but you shifted it unto the author of Hebrews by saying Hebrews 3:4 informed you. By inference you imply that author knows the answer and by extension you. So I still wait for the answer.

I get what you are asking and I responded appropriately but not too in depth. The two verses I quoted showed both the logic of believing in God's existence and how creation gives credibility to his existence which this TOPIC is about. From the two verses I read, God's existence has been shown to have logical merits.

But by going in depth, you now want to learn about God or who he is.

LordReed:


I didn't push abiogenesis, I corrected an erroneous generalisation. You can choose whatever fantasy takes your fancy but don't use it as a cover to spread misinformation.

That's not completely true. If you do a stop search of 'Lordreed and abiogenesis' , you'll be amaze at the number of times you recommend your supposed 'mysterious theory', as substitute for believe in a fiery and even provides resource materials even when you do know that concept is mysterious and void of evidence.That's how 'belief system works'.
Many people here have no existence of their Gods and many they make claim about how mysterious he is. But they'll recommend their 'Belief system' book for you.
They both require a TRUST that breeds faith!

haddeylium:

That's not completely true. If you do a stop search of 'Lordreed and abiogenesis' , you'll be amaze at the number of times you recommend your supposed 'mysterious theory', as substitute for believe in a fiery and even provides resource materials even when you do know that concept is mysterious and void of evidence.That's how 'belief system works'.
Many people here have no existence of their Gods and many they make claim about how mysterious he is. But they'll recommend their 'Belief system' book for you.
They both require a TRUST that breeds faith!

I am talking of this thread and you are pointing to stuff outside this thread.

BTW go read anything I have written about abiogenesis and understand that I have not written anywhere that I believe in it.

LordReed:


I am talking of this thread and you are point to stuff outside this thread.

BTW go read anything I have written about abiogenesis and understand that I have written that I believe in it.

This doesn't make much grammatical sense if you read and reread it. So you're going to write some bible we can believe, Reed? Is that our plan.

Image123:


This doesn't make much grammatical sense if you read and reread it. So you're going to write some bible we can believe, Reed? Is that our plan.

Lagbaja Nothing For You!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd-MeDtmIbA