Aemmyjah:


You're wrong
The idea that the universe was created some 6000 years ago is false and misleading

Ok, you don’t believe the Bible. So how long ago do you think the universe was created? And was it spoken into existence?

Of course it's strange , i have heard and met people that doesn't believe in Jesus or Muhammad but you're the first saying you've never heard about them

Aemmyjah:


Is that completely strange to you?

MaxInDHouse:


This is exactly what i often tell you guys, the way you've been indoctrinated in false religions makes you think the highlighted is how to define faith whereas you're wrong.
That has nothing to do with REAL faith!

So tell us how you define faith. By faith one can believe an entity spoke the universe into existence some 6000 years ago. It is NOT at all wrong to believe so, but tell us how it is logical

PoliteActivist:


So we at least arrive at one agreement: Religion is NOT logical
Though some religionists are still debating that it is

i did not actually say that, i referred to your worship of logic. There are many ways into Lagos.

Like when someone is shot for example in a vital organ if the person get a surgeon very fast the person have at least 50/50 survival chance but if he doesn't see a surgeon and the people there just pray to God the person dies 100% ..... everything people gave God credit for human actually did it , that's why i say God doesn't interfere in human life

Aemmyjah:


Such as?

Aemmyjah:
PoliteActivist
God is acknowledged or referenced as the Cause or Creator of all things
Atheists say all things came into existence by itself without any cause

How's that possible?
That's the major foundation of such arguments
Thank you

Well, atheists reply that if God can come into existence by himself, so can vacuum energy which gave rise to big bang and the universe

isan:
Pure faith is when a pastor tell his followers he he drank tea with God and they all believed him .... I personally think it's just delusional

How can that be pure faith when it is based on something? Pure faith is a boy in the slum with no money for food or school being certain he'll one day be a millionaire

That boy in slum is also based on something, like working hard or going to school to land a life changing job ...

PoliteActivist:


How can that be pure faith when it is based on something? Pure faith is a boy in the slum with no money for food or school being certain he'll one day be a millionaire

Image123:


i did not actually say that, i referred to your worship of logic. There are many ways into Lagos.

So are you reverting to religion being logical? If so, how? Note that I said it is OK to believe the universe was spoken into existence some 6000 years ago because it says so in the Bible, just don't say it is logical

isan:
That boy in slum is also based on something, like working hard or going to school to land a life changing job ...

Nope, based on nothing observable in the present circumstances - that is pure faith. Being 100% sure of something for no reason. Just like a miracle is NOT based on logic

DeepSight:


I already explained to Lordreed in the other thread you created and you were following. So I neednt repeat myself.
There is logic enough to infer the existence of God.

However it is not just logic. I have long described myself as a rational and intuitive deist.
So, beyond logic, there is also intuition.

And I patiently explained to you why your logic is flawed, just as I explained why cogito is flawed. I thought those are amicably settled issues

PoliteActivist:


And I patiently explained to you why your logic is flawed, just as I explained why cogito is flawed. I thought those are amicably settled issues

You didnt explain jack. I just got tired.

PoliteActivist:


Oh, about sending you money, my subordinates say they are inundated - too many people who have nothing to eat, talkless of having data to be on Nairaland.
Some people believe God exists and some people don't. Which category are you under and why?

9163989689 opay


send me money b4 i answer ur questions

Aemmyjah:

Good
On what basis do you say time is self - existent
Time is measured
Time is a dimension
How's it self - existent?

Time is a perfect intangible. Only the finite scientific time which is a dimension of motion in this universe can be understood the way we mostly do. Real time is stagnant and infinite, necessary and self existent.

DeepSight:


You didnt explain jack. I just got tired.

I did. Here again:
1) There is no reason why a self-existing, unchanging will suddenly CHANGE and start creating unless compelled by a something outside itself or a change within itself

2) Cigito being faulty is rather self-explanatory

PoliteActivist:


I'll remove your name. But faith is illogical and is meant to be illogical. If you don't know that then you don't understand what is faith. What do you think is meant by evidence of things not seen nor felt?
Also if you are intellectually honest for once, you'd acknowledge there's something funny about creating someone, giving them a certain type of brain, knowing in advance they'll disobey you, THEN when they use the brain to disobey you, you don’t punish them temporarily so they'll learn a lesson and not try such again...

I've not read your main post, but this kinda caught my attention.

Since you decided to play the devil's advocate, we might be looking at a very long thread ahead of us.

I've said it countless times on this forum that none of the supposed god characters fit into what can be called a God. Especially the anthropomorphic stance.
I think that was my first thread when I came back to NL, that it's impossible for Yahweh and Allah to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent or omnipresent.
Just the book of Genesis and those attributes were effortlessly refuted.

If you got less busy, you can check the link down here.

https://www.nairaland.com/7593172/eternal-synagogue-civilized-atheist-movement#121402054

PoliteActivist:


I did. Here again:
1) There is no reason why a self-existing, unchanging will suddenly CHANGE and start creating unless compelled by a something outside itself or a change within itself

And I answered that. I even gave you an analogy of the sun, trying to show you that a thing needn't change to have consequences of its existence.

2) Cigito being faulty is rather self-explanatory

What is this for heaven sake its simple: a thought requires an experiencer no matter how you slice it or dice it.

Aemmyjah:


You're the atheists
Cunningly trying to create this thread
Atheists have nothing meaningful to teach
Just doubt nd confusion to enforce on others or subtly try to make them to adopt
Faith is not, was not and will never be illogical
Atheism is the definition of illogism

So what meaningful things do christians have to teach?

FRANCISTOWN:

I've not read your main post, but this kinda caught my attention.

Since you decided to play the devil's advocate, we might be looking at a very long thread ahead of us.

I've said it countless times on this forum that none of the supposed god characters fit into what can be called a God. Especially the anthropomorphic stance.
I think that was my first thread when I came back to NL, that it's impossible for Yahweh and Allah to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent or omnipresent.
Just the book of Genesis and those attributes were effortlessly refuted.

If you got less busy, you can check the link down here.

https://www.nairaland.com/7593172/eternal-synagogue-civilized-atheist-movement#121402054

Yahweh and Allah are obvious barbaric entities.

FRANCISTOWN:

I've not read your main post, but this kinda caught my attention.

Since you decided to play the devil's advocate, we might be looking at a very long thread ahead of us.

I've said it countless times on this forum that none of the supposed god characters fit into what can be called a God. Especially the anthropomorphic stance.
I think that was my first thread when I came back to NL, that it's impossible for Yahweh and Allah to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent or omnipresent.
Just the book of Genesis and those attributes were effortlessly refuted.

If you got less busy, you can check the link down here.

https://www.nairaland.com/7593172/eternal-synagogue-civilized-atheist-movement#121402054

When I have time I'll read the thread you referenced.
But what do you say to the overwhelming, preponderance of circumstantial evidence that someone or something set this up? And the countless personal encounters of a higher power that so many people have had through the ages?

PoliteActivist:


Well, atheists reply that if God can come into existence by himself, so can vacuum energy which gave rise to big bang and the universe

u dont come into by urself

coming into means to succeed and precede some other cases at once

precede YA YA YA(what happens after u come) but succeed NA NA NA(what happens b4 u come)

a case now referring to a chance of either this or that .

DeepSight:


And I answered that. I even gave you an analogy of the sun, trying to show you that a thing needn't change to have consequences of its existence.



What is this for heaven sake its simple: a thought requires an experiencer no matter how you slice it or dice it.

And I showed you that your sun analogy is faulty - that an eternal unchanging self-existing sun or anything will not wake up one day and suddenly START creating

What proof do you have that a thought requires an experiencer. Describe the experiencer. In that case it can be anything: "I walk, therefore I am" since walking requires a walker". Which is why cigito starts with the assumption that "I" already exists. I will even go further and say that cogito doesn't prove that thought exists because that may actually NOT be thought. It proves that something exists but we can't be sure what it is exactly

PoliteActivist:

So tell us how you define faith. By faith one can believe an entity spoke the universe into existence some 6000 years ago. It is NOT at all wrong to believe so, but tell us how it is logical

That is not faith this is what most of you need to learn but instead of humbly listening you will start arguing blindly.

Faith has nothing to do with what has happened in the past because you have no say or power or part to play in what has happened in the past rather:
faith is the assured expectation of what we hope for the evident demonstration of reality even though we have not seen it yet! Hebrews 11:1

So if you're talking about FAITH it should involve the faithful as in the part he is playing when nobody can see what he is working towards.

For instance the Wright Brothers had FAITH that it's possible for people to travel through the air and they started working towards it until it was achieved so if you want to talk about faith remember people like that who worked towards what no one has ever seen before their act of doing so is called FAITH not what has happened in the past that involves none of us living today!

PoliteActivist:


And I showed you that your sun analogy is faulty - that an eternal unchanging self-existing sun or anything will not wake up one day and suddenly START creating

What proof do you have that a thought requires an experiencer. Describe the experiencer. In that case it can be anything: "I walk, therefore I am" since walking requires a walker". Which is why cigito starts with the assumption that "I" already exists. I will even go further and say that cogito doesn't prove that thought exists because that may actually NOT be thought. It proves that something exists but we can't be sure what it is exactly

Any experience requires an experiencer and that is not a statement that requires proof unless you are not a serious discussant - perhaps the sort of discussant who will demand proof that breathing requires air.

As to your obsession with the sequence of the sentence - the fact that it starts with "I" - that only shows how pedantic your thinking is, Because it can easily be re-phrased as "Thinking exists, and thinking requires a thinker."

When God's word said Elijah was taken in the heavens by flying horses on fire of course all of us will doubt it because we haven't seen horses flying before on fire but today can any right thinking person who has seen a airplane argue that flying vessel is impossible?

When God's word said a prophet in the Bible to look at the wall and begin seeing what was happening inside the temple like he's watching a smart TV of course nobody living back then can believe that but do you think a primary school child today will doubt the CCTV and smart TV?

So leave things that happened in the past God has said those things happen but we will surely get there if God permits us to live forever.

There are so many things God's word told us in the Bible that sounds impossible thousands of years ago but today we no longer doubt it.

God told Moses that He suspends the earth upon nothing {Job 26:7} so the whole world could be hanging out there with nothing to support it? Even those claiming scientists back then disagreed completely because it makes no sense to them but what about today?

God told Isaiah that the earth is spherical and all it's inhabitants are glued to it like ants {Isaiah 40:22} which means some people are living on the other side of the ball where they may be in darkness while the first ones are enjoying daylight?
All these happened in the past so it has nothing to do with our faith because we never need to play any part to make it happen but do you still doubt these things today with what we know now?

HellVictorinho6:


u dont come into by urself

coming into means to succeed and precede some other cases at once

precede YA YA YA(what happens after u come) but succeed NA NA NA(what happens b4 u come)

a case now referring to a chance of either this or that .

Bottom line, if one basic element can be self-existing, so can another. No matter how you slice and dice the language. Quantum particles appear out of " nothing" all the time, then disappear

MaxInDHouse:


That is not faith this is what most of you need to learn but instead of humbly listening you will start arguing blindly.

Faith has nothing to do with what has happened in the past because you have no say or power or part to play in what has happened in the past rather:
faith is the assured expectation of what we hope for the evident demonstration of reality even though we have not seen it yet! Hebrews 11:1

So if you're talking about FAITH it should involve the faithful as in the part he is playing when nobody can see what he is working towards.

For instance the Wright Brothers had FAITH that it's possible for people to travel through the air and they started working towards it until it was achieved so if you want to talk about faith remember people like that who worked towards what no one has ever seen before their act of doing so is called FAITH not what has happened in the past that involves none of us living today!

You are conflating two types of faith - faith needed to achieve and faith needed to believe. It took faith for a contemporary of Lord Jesus to believe he was the Son of God, though they could see clearly he was a carpenter with neither money nor high connections

PoliteActivist:


Well, atheists reply that if God can come into existence by himself, so can vacuum energy which gave rise to big bang and the universe

Is energy physical? can it be perceived and controlled within out own realm of physical dimension?

DeepSight:


Any experience requires an experiencer and that is not a statement that requires proof unless you are not a serious discussant - perhaps the sort of discussant who will demand proof that breathing requires air.

As to your obsession with the sequence of the sentence - the fact that it starts with "I" - that only shows how pedantic your thinking is, Because it can easily be re-phrased as "Thinking exists, and thinking requires a thinker."

I am NOT the person who set the parameters. Descartes did in his book. He said he'd doubt anything he could remotely doubt.
Disregarding that the statement is faulty in itself,
Here's the logical sequence of events:
1) There is thinking (this we are fairly sure about)
2) Therefore there must be a thinker (we have no way of knowing this unless we claim we know the true nature of existence, which we don't! Also, the only describable attribute of the thinker is thinking - thinking is the thinker!)
3) That thinker must be "I" (obviously not true)

PoliteActivist:


I am NOT the person who set the parameters. Descartes did in his book. He said he'd doubt anything he could remotely doubt.
Disregarding that the statement is faulty in itself,
Here's the logical sequence of events:
1) There is thinking (this we are fairly sure about)
2) Therefore there must be a thinker (we have no way of knowing this unless we claim we know the true nature of existence, which we don't! Also, the only describable attribute of the thinker is thinking - thinking is the thinker!)
3) That thinker must be "I" (obviously not true)

This is crap, sorry, and not worthy of a response. When you write something worthy you know I will respond.

SIRTee15:


Is energy physical? can it be perceived and controlled within out own realm of physical dimension?

We don't know the ultimate nature of vacuum energy, but whatever it is, we know it is possible it has always been there - especially since it is the energy in "nothing"!

DeepSight:


This is crap, sorry, and not worthy of a response. When you write something worthy you know I will respond.

Maybe time for QED .
There's clearly all sorts of thinking going on in a dream, and while "I" is unconscious or possessed, or even dead (as narrated by people who came back), who is doing the thinking? As with many things about existence, we don't know the true nature of thinking.
QED