Learned gentlemen and ladies, this debate about a first cause who was not himself/itself caused is a cul-de-sac because no-one will change his mind against his will, and to make a man change his mind requires more than reason because he can choose to discountenance whatever reasons you advance.
Fisrtly let me admit that it takes a more conscious effort to be an atheist than to be a theist. Most times we become theist not by choice but by family, peers etc and then latter accumulate reasons to defend and justify our belief while considering evidences against our belief as exceptions to the rule. For this reason a child born in a muslim family will belief in God as defined by Quaran, so a child born in a Christian family will belief first in the creeds of Christianity and as he grows seeks only evidences that advance his belief and rejecting evidences to the contrary as aberration. Hence for most theism, the belief comes first and then the justifications.
However for the atheist, considering the relatively small percentage of people in this category, it is not unsafe to assume most mere born into some theist family but over time due to education or self determination/decision then personally chose to change belief from theism to atheism… most times against odds. For this reason you realize most atheists are vast in science “space-time continuum concept, evolution etc). Hence being an atheist is most times a product of self decision based on personal evaluation of available evidences. That is the justifications come before the belief.
Hence I can make a first conclusion by saying atheists are more rational than theists.
But the greatest conflict comes from the sources of argument, the theist (Christian for example)) use the bible, while the atheists use observation, logic and science.
On one hand the atheist don’t say that bible claims are false (I suppose), they rather posit that those claims could be rather explained without introduction of a god element eg creation of life, creation of night and day, with sun to rule the day and moon to rule the night, rainbow, seasons etc.
And on the other hand, we know that science is evolutionary, certain things we know today were unknown before and perhaps certain things we don’t know today may become clear later. So the theist say, due to this nature of the atheists’ tool of argument (science), it may not be the final authority of what is true, since its conclusions evolve with new information over time.
Going a little further, the development of most of the theist’s argument (big-bang, black-hole, relativity, Darwinian evolution, space and planetary bodies etc ) are recent within the last 300-350 years whereas the bible patches and commentary compiled in today’s bible scientifically dates back 1700(new testament) – 3000 (old testament) years
I find it a bit curious that many things the aged book (bible) already implied/said are been corroborated by the young science. I give a few examples:

(1) Gen 1:1 the bible says “in the beginning god created the heaven(s) and the earth” if you check any translation of the bible you will see the pluralisation of the word HEAVENS. The writer of genesis must be implying here other earth-like domains which in the available vocabulary of the time he referred to as the heaven(s). I think if the word planet already existed at that time it would have read “in the beginning god created the planets and earth”

(2) Isaiah 40:22 “He (god) sits enthroned upon the circle of the earth” this already gives the notion of a circular/spherical earth which science refuted until 1861 when Ferdinand Margellan circumnavigated the earth and showed that the earth was not flat as supposed by science but really spherical like the bible already implied.

(3) 2 Pet 3:3 “But do not forget …with the lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” Do you realize it must have taken great faith and writing out of sheer inspiration to make a claim like above 1700 years ago. This statement suggests that the writer knows that the length of a day is a function of the planetary body to which you belong. For example 1 year in Pluto (time to rotate round the sun) is apprx 350 earth-years and 1 day in Venus is approx 245 earth-days. So then just imagine that Heaven (gods supposed abode) is one of the far away planets in our galaxy, it would not be impossible to have a planetary body whose 1 year is equivalent to 1000+ earth-years (this is also directly applicable to days and night based on the size of the planet and its speed of rotation about its axis). Therefore in the events of genesis where the bible talks of god creating the earth in 7days, we just can’t tell whose day reference the writer implies- earth day or heaven day. But beyond all the science jargons, my point is , the bible seems to already imply or refer to concepts which science later grows-up to relate with.

(4) I have done a lot of reading on Black-holes “it is formed by dead exploding stars,such stars collapse into an infinitely dense mater called singularity. The black-hole has infitely large gravity and nothing that enters it can ever escape even light. It is for this reason they have been difficult to study by science since light rays hitting the singularity never escapes for us to perceive with the telescope The black-hole hence is a scientific place of darkness from which nothing that enters can escape. This for me seems to fit the biblical concept of hell, (a bottomless pit (notice the similarity black-hole, dark bottomless-pit)


Hence I will conclude with the following observations,
(i) Based on the afore mentioned points, I think that science is not a sufficient bases as of today to tell us that god does not exist, since we have shown that the knowledge of science grows and improves with time. Hence although science doesn’t see the need for the existence of god today, it may arrive there tomorrow.
(ii) The bible has been shown by the fore examples to speak ahead of time of events which science comes behind to confirm, hence we may want to intuitively uphold what we think the bible says whenever it is conflicting with science in the hope that someday science will arrive at same position as the bible holds.
(iii) Then since the bible says that god exists, it is safe to belief it, hoping one day science will also affirm it.

*yawns*
Back to sleep!

Oro-Agba:
Learned gentlemen and ladies, this debate about a first cause who was not himself/itself caused is a cul-de-sac because no-one will change his mind against his will, and to make a man change his mind requires more than reason because he can choose to discountenance whatever reasons you advance.
Fisrtly let me admit that it takes a more conscious effort to be an atheist than to be a theist. Most times we become theist not by choice but by family, peers etc and then latter accumulate reasons to defend and justify our belief while considering evidences against our belief as exceptions to the rule. For this reason a child born in a muslim family will belief in God as defined by Quaran, so a child born in a Christian family will belief first in the creeds of Christianity and as he grows seeks only evidences that advance his belief and rejecting evidences to the contrary as aberration. Hence for most theism, the belief comes first and then the justifications.

Good. And I hope you realize that such a method is a poor one for deciding on whether or not a belief is true.

Oro-Agba:

However for the atheist, considering the relatively small percentage of people in this category, it is not unsafe to assume most mere born into some theist family but over time due to education or self determination/decision then personally chose to change belief from theism to atheism… most times against odds. For this reason you realize most atheists are vast in science “space-time continuum concept, evolution etc). Hence being an atheist is most times a product of self decision based on personal evaluation of available evidences. That is the justifications come before the belief.
Hence I can make a first conclusion by saying atheists are more rational than theists.

So you believe that in general, atheists are more rational than theists. Are you a theist or not?

Oro-Agba:

But the greatest conflict comes from the sources of argument, the theist (Christian for example)) use the bible, while the atheists use observation, logic and science.
On one hand the atheist don’t say that bible claims are false (I suppose), they rather posit that those claims could be rather explained without introduction of a god element eg creation of life, creation of night and day, with sun to rule the day and moon to rule the night, rainbow, seasons etc.
And on the other hand, we know that science is evolutionary, certain things we know today were unknown before and perhaps certain things we don’t know today may become clear later. So the theist say, due to this nature of the atheists’ tool of argument (science), it may not be the final authority of what is true, since its conclusions evolve with new information over time.

Actually, they say that some of the biblical claims are false e.g the talking snake, talking donkey, the exodus, Job in a big fish etc. Actually, it is the tool/method of science that is considered the best available. The difference is that the current conclusions arrived based on our current knowledge may be updated later.

Oro-Agba:

Going a little further, the development of most of the theist’s argument (big-bang, black-hole, relativity, Darwinian evolution, space and planetary bodies etc ) are recent within the last 300-350 years whereas the bible patches and commentary compiled in today’s bible scientifically dates back 1700(new testament) – 3000 (old testament) years
I find it a bit curious that many things the aged book (bible) already implied/said are been corroborated by the young science. I give a few examples:

Have you considered that it could be because the believers first believe then seek justification later as you've already pointed out?

Oro-Agba:

(1) Gen 1:1 the bible says “in the beginning god created the heaven(s) and the earth” if you check any translation of the bible you will see the pluralisation of the word HEAVENS. The writer of genesis must be implying here other earth-like domains which in the available vocabulary of the time he referred to as the heaven(s). I think if the word planet already existed at that time it would have read “in the beginning god created the planets and earth”

Does this then mean that this God didn't create the universe?

Oro-Agba:

(2) Isaiah 40:22 “He (god) sits enthroned upon the circle of the earth” this already gives the notion of a circular/spherical earth which science refuted until 1861 when Ferdinand Margellan circumnavigated the earth and showed that the earth was not flat as supposed by science but really spherical like the bible already implied.

Science wasn't used to refute it, you're also ignoring the fact that a circle is flat while a sphere is round. Please show where scientists claimed that the earth was flat.

Oro-Agba:

(3) 2 Pet 3:3 “But do not forget …with the lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” Do you realize it must have taken great faith and writing out of sheer inspiration to make a claim like above 1700 years ago. This statement suggests that the writer knows that the length of a day is a function of the planetary body to which you belong. For example 1 year in Pluto (time to rotate round the sun) is apprx 350 earth-years and 1 day in Venus is approx 245 earth-days. So then just imagine that Heaven (gods supposed abode) is one of the far away planets in our galaxy, it would not be impossible to have a planetary body whose 1 year is equivalent to 1000+ earth-years (this is also directly applicable to days and night based on the size of the planet and its speed of rotation about its axis). Therefore in the events of genesis where the bible talks of god creating the earth in 7days, we just can’t tell whose day reference the writer implies- earth day or heaven day. But beyond all the science jargons, my point is , the bible seems to already imply or refer to concepts which science later grows-up to relate with.

Pluto is not a planet. Also, if heaven is a planet, then who created it? Where was God before the universe became such that planets were present?

Oro-Agba:

(4) I have done a lot of reading on Black-holes “it is formed by dead exploding stars,such stars collapse into an infinitely dense mater called singularity. The black-hole has infitely large gravity and nothing that enters it can ever escape even light. It is for this reason they have been difficult to study by science since light rays hitting the singularity never escapes for us to perceive with the telescope The black-hole hence is a scientific place of darkness from which nothing that enters can escape. This for me seems to fit the biblical concept of hell, (a bottomless pit (notice the similarity black-hole, dark bottomless-pit)

So there are multiple hells in this universe? Have you considered that this biblical concept was simply made up and you're trying to justify it by any means possible?

Oro-Agba:

Hence I will conclude with the following observations,
(i) Based on the afore mentioned points, I think that science is not a sufficient bases as of today to tell us that god does not exist, since we have shown that the knowledge of science grows and improves with time. Hence although science doesn’t see the need for the existence of god today, it may arrive there tomorrow.
(ii) The bible has been shown by the fore examples to speak ahead of time of events which science comes behind to confirm, hence we may want to intuitively uphold what we think the bible says whenever it is conflicting with science in the hope that someday science will arrive at same position as the bible holds.
(iii) Then since the bible says that god exists, it is safe to belief it, hoping one day science will also affirm it.

I hope based on my responses, you'll realize that you're guilty of the problems you pointed out in the beginning of your post.

thehomer the staunch atheist, one of the big problems i have observed with the atheist community on nairaland is that they rarely make a strong case from first principles for their convictions, they are most times simply waiting for a theist to make a submission and off they go taking the points one-after the other and raising questions about it.

Rather than flagging my submission one-after the other i will like you to first understand me fully ( i re-summarize my main points below) and then respond to me in your own words rather than flagging and faulting mine)

1. i admit it takes more rational and conscious self decision to be atheist than to be theist

2. Whether i am atheist or theist i think is secondary at this point, we may simply like to focus on the observations raised

3. This observations include that science never claims to be all knowing, because its conclusions evolve and things which were false yersterday are now true today and who knows may become false again tomorrow( eg pluto: a planet once, not a planet anymore; atom smallest indivisible part of matter while i was in secondary school, but today not anymore, there are now photons which are smaller than atoms etc)

4.Theists (eg christians) claim that their source (bible) is infallible

5. Coincidentally a few things which this alleged infallible source claims long ago later gets affirmed by science (re-refer to my original posts for the examples)

6. Why do you think therefore in any subject where bible and science conflicts, that i would be wrong to follow the bible? Following science, tomorrow it may come and proclaim another conclusion based on new findings.

Please forget the issue of first cause for now, we will get to that later, that is not my point yet, my point is to help us explore which is a more credible source of evidence in subjects where bible and science have conflicting conclusions: the theist bible or the atheist science considering points 3-5 above

@OP
All your claims are a product of your thought and it cannot substantiated by any proof. You are trying to interprete the mind of the writers of the bible but they do not add up. I have severally heard claims by thiests of the christian extraction say that science is corroborating the bible especially at the point where they say God Sits above the circles of the earth. You and I know there is a difference between a circle and a sphere and am sure people existing then could observe the difference. Also in Genesis 1:1, the bible say 'in the beginning, God created the Heaven and the earh' (KJV)
Check the link below for most of your answers.


http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/astronomy.html
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter7.html

Hi dekung,
i must salut you for the maturity of your response, i also checked out the links you posted and found them quite educative. The website did a good job of picking every line of scripture investigated as literally as he could. Like Reuben Abati once said, if i was speaking to a rowdy audience and say gentlemen please lend me your ears, will you claim i'm asking them to cut of their ears and give to me? I'm sure you wouldn't

That is why in matters of law, we usually have the laws and then explanatory documents that details the spirit of the law ie what the lawmakers had in mind in framing the law and wording it as done.

Agreed it will not be proper for me to take the position of an advocate and trying to reconstruct the mind of the writers of the bible, but then you too should not be found forcing words into their mouths and making them say what they didn't intend to say. We are both speculative about what is meant by what is written and hence you can't put down my speculations without proof that you're sure that is not what they meant.Remember -"what is posited without proof can also be de-posited without proof"

Regarding Gen 1:1, i checked in KJV and found you are right, KJV uses HEAVEN and not HEAVENS. I rarely consult the KJV because of its rather unfamiliar language (thou hath, seeth, doeth etc, i had based my observation on KJV, NKJV (new KJV), TLB, NASB) which contains more conventional language usage.

Ragarding you point that the bible was wrong calling the earth a circle instead of a sphere (Isa 40:22), i never said myself that the bible was right in that, i simply said that based on the vocabulary available at that time just may be that was the closest means of expressing the concept the writer had in mind. Me and you know that the basic shapes are circle, triangle, rectangle, it is when you go in 3D that they birth sphere, cone, cuboid respectively. Most school age children learn the basic shapes much earlier and their 3D equivalents much later. You must give credit to the writer for not saying triangle or rectangle, circle already connotes curviness contrary to flatness.

On one of your websites posted, the writer picks up the scripture in Dan4:11 "the tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky, it was visible to the ends of the earth" and literally runs away claiming the bible authour was a flat-earther (ie beliefs in a flat earth). The phrase "ends of the earth" does not imply an abrupt end or lack of continuity of space, it rather means an extrimity of location or a distant land. Take note that the passage did not read "end of the earth" rather it reads "ends(plural) of the earth", we both know beyond semantics that this is not an assertion but rather an expression meaning extremity, distant etc. Don't force the writer to say what he didn't intend by interpreting "ends of the earth" as the place where the land (earth) ends

Furtherstill, taking a look at the first part of this same Dan40:22 "the tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky,...." would you also run away with the interpretation that the writer suggests that a plat (tree) can grow and literally touch the sky? that would be absurd. Contextually Dan40 was a dream regarding Nebuchadnezzar who was a pround king that set himself almost in the place of God. Hence "..a tree with its top touching the sky" would contextually mean someone who has set himself high above all peoples, rather than an actual tree as tall as the sky. Do you understand?

Please don't come back to say i'm only trying to reconstruct the mind of the writer of daniel because you too would be guilty of this same offence, trying to force him to say what you like to belief, or like i said in the opening sentence, if i was speaking to a rowdy audience and say gentlemen please lend me your ears, will you claim i'm asking them to cut of their ears and give to me?

Hence going back to my real issues
1. i admit it takes more rational and conscious self decision to be atheist than to be theist

2. Whether i am atheist or theist i think is secondary at this point, we may simply like to focus on the observations raised

3. This observations include that science never claims to be all knowing, because its conclusions evolve and things which were false yersterday are now true today and who knows may become false again tomorrow( eg pluto: a planet once, not a planet anymore; atom smallest indivisible part of matter while i was in secondary school, but today not anymore, there are now photons which are smaller than atoms etc)

4.Theists (eg christians) claim that their source (bible) is infallible

5. Coincidentally a few things which this alleged infallible source claims long ago later gets affirmed by science (re-refer to my original posts for the examples)

6. Why do you think therefore in any subject where bible and science conflicts, that i would be wrong to follow the bible? Following science, tomorrow it may come and proclaim another conclusion based on new findings.

Please forget the issue of first cause for now, we will get to that later, that is not my point yet, my point is to help us explore which is a more credible source of evidence in subjects where bible and science have conflicting conclusions: the theist bible or the atheist science considering points 3-5 above

^^^^

Today I learned there is something called "Atheist Science".

you just conviced me. i believe in god.
and i prophesy that this belief comes from my own strength as god has become too lazy to show himself. I have scientifically observed this.
you are right. broda. i need me a tight black hole. "Nkechi! come over here." Hell, here I come.

Logic Mind: you just conviced me. i believe in god.
and i prophesy that this belief comes from my own strength as god has become too lazy to show himself. I have scientifically observed this.
you are right. broda. i need me a tight black hole. "Nkechi! come over here." Hell, here I come.

Sorry to tell you this bro, but Nkechi's black hole is as massive as the one in the middle of the milky way galaxy. Only God can fill it.

Martian:

Sorry to tell you this bro, but Nkechi's black hole is as massive as the one in the middle of the milky way galaxy. Only God can fill it.

oooh kinky

Hi gentlemen ( Martian,Logic Mind and ea7),
I am quite excited to see you guys visit this tread, i have followed your contributions closely on various other threads and reckon you guys (no spite intended,especially martian) as quite seasoned and schooled in your chosen belief. But above all i am all the more delighted that you seem to reason along with my lines of observation without objection. I give myself a pat on the back!!!

Now taking the discussion further, a serious problem among theist (eg christians) is lack of ability to communicate their belief/faith effectively to a non-believer, but may be it is not as much a problem of skill as it is of knowledge- because you cannot communicate clearly what you don't understand deeply.

I am open minded and will never put myself up to defend the bible, but rather since i was not there when it was written (neither were you) i like to look at all the possible variations of sound and logical interpretations that the written words can permit. If i find one that helps my belief then i uphold it as the possible intention of the writer except you the atheist can proof to me definitively why my choice of sound and logical interpretation is not the true intention of the writer.

With this position of mine clearly clarified, and with the observation that you have tacitly admitted my position as not been foolish to hold unto the bible rather than science in matters of conflicting conclusions, then i will invite you to let's take this discussion to a higher level.

1. I know you belief what science says, just like me also ( a scientist by training), but what reasons do you have not to also belief what the bible says (forget about the concept of god for the main time, because neither the theist also have seen god, they rely on the bible to postulate about him/it).

2. Just the way we both share strong belief in science, i wonder why you choose not to belief in bible accounts like me also? Give reasons pls

3. Can you also please give evidences for your reasons in 2 above

4. I am convinced you are quite learned in the basis of your convictions, but just maybe there are certain misunderstandings we can help each other out of. Let us compare notes and see how we can help update each other. I am persuaded that believing in science and believing in bible are not mutually exclusive events, one can uphold both knowing fully well the applications and limitations of each

Oro-Agba:
Hi gentlemen ( Martian,Logic Mind and ea7),
I am quite excited to see you guys visit this tread, i have followed your contributions closely on various other threads and reckon you guys (no spite intended,especially martian) as quite seasoned and schooled in your chosen belief. But above all i am all the more delighted that you seem to reason along with my lines of observation without objection. I give myself a pat on the back!!!

I did not reason along your line of observation. My comment about "atheist science" was tongue in cheek.

Oro-Agba:
With this position of mine clearly clarified, and with the observation that you have tacitly admitted my position as not been foolish to hold unto the bible rather than science in matters of conflicting conclusions, then i will invite you to let's take this discussion to a higher level.

Why create a conflict between the bible and science? Is the bible supposed to be a scientific text? Which branch of science are you trying to compare the bible to? Lastly, science is not a religious guideline like the bible , it's just accumulated knowledge brought about by observation and experiments.

Oro-Agba:
1. I know you belief what science says, just like me also (a scientist by training), but what reasons do you have not to also belief what the bible says (forget about the concept of god for the main time, because neither the theist also have seen god, they rely on the bible to postulate about him/it).

I don't have a belief in science. Science is not a religion, science is a tool. The same tool that was used to create this thing called the internet. When biblical knowledge creates something like that, maybe we will view it as a scientific text. Till then, it's just a book of jewish folklores and bad freaking ideas.

Oro-Agba:
2. Just the way we both share strong belief in science, i wonder why you choose not to belief in bible accounts like me also? Give reasons pls

I don't have a belief in science!!!!! Capice?
I have reasons(and evidence) to believe that the scientific method works. That's all.

Oro-Agba:
Can you also please give evidences for your reasons in 2 above

Vaccination and the polio vaccine weren't found in the pages of your greco-jewish masterpiece. In short everything that makes your life comfortable is because of the scientific method.

Oro-Agba:
4. I am convinced you are quite learned in the basis of your convictions, but just maybe there are certain misunderstandings we can help each other out of. Let us compare notes and see how we can help update each other. I am persuaded that believing in science and believing in bible are not mutually exclusive events, one can uphold both knowing fully well the applications and limitations of each

I got a question.Why don't you believe in the Wicca Book of Shadows?

^^
The key issue with the bible is one of epistemology. Can knowledge be acquired via Faith?? My answer is NO. Absolute acceptance of an idea without scrutiny isn't an effective way of separating errors from the truth. Faith isn't structured with reality.

The authors of the bible were prisoners of their time, they couldn't have known what was beyond them and their methods.

The bible is filled with tales of the impossible and supernatural.

2. Just the way we both share strong belief in science, i wonder why you choose not to belief in bible accounts like me also? Give reasons pls

How about common sense? The bible is just a book of fables writen thousands of years by primitive men. This is very easy to see when you look at the contradictions and absurdities in the bible. From all your post in this thread I think you are a closeth atheist suffering from cognitive dissonance. Comparing science to the bible is ridiculous just like the appologetics Inteligent Designe, really show how desperate you people are.

Like you rightly stated earlier, it takes more intelligence, common sense and of course more resarch to become an atheist.

Oro-Agba:
Hi gentlemen ( Martian,Logic Mind and ea7),
I am quite excited to see you guys visit this tread, i have followed your contributions closely on various other threads and reckon you guys (no spite intended,especially martian) as quite seasoned and schooled in your chosen belief. But above all i am all the more delighted that you seem to reason along with my lines of observation without objection. I give myself a pat on the back!!!

Now taking the discussion further, a serious problem among theist (eg christians) is lack of ability to communicate their belief/faith effectively to a non-believer, but may be it is not as much a problem of skill as it is of knowledge- because you cannot communicate clearly what you don't understand deeply.

I am open minded and will never put myself up to defend the bible, but rather since i was not there when it was written (neither were you) i like to look at all the possible variations of sound and logical interpretations that the written words can permit. If i find one that helps my belief then i uphold it as the possible intention of the writer except you the atheist can proof to me definitively why my choice of sound and logical interpretation is not the true intention of the writer.

With this position of mine clearly clarified, and with the observation that you have tacitly admitted my position as not been foolish to hold unto the bible rather than science in matters of conflicting conclusions, then i will invite you to let's take this discussion to a higher level.

1. I know you belief what science says, just like me also ( a scientist by training), but what reasons do you have not to also belief what the bible says (forget about the concept of god for the main time, because neither the theist also have seen god, they rely on the bible to postulate about him/it).

2. Just the way we both share strong belief in science, i wonder why you choose not to belief in bible accounts like me also? Give reasons pls

3. Can you also please give evidences for your reasons in 2 above

4. I am convinced you are quite learned in the basis of your convictions, but just maybe there are certain misunderstandings we can help each other out of. Let us compare notes and see how we can help update each other. I am persuaded that believing in science and believing in bible are not mutually exclusive events, one can uphold both knowing fully well the applications and limitations of each

*Blushes*:* You see, I am but a young Lad of not quite sixteen, i must take a backseat to my more experienced betters.
Now alas I bring my cutlass to brutally assault your post.
1) Don't pat yourself on the back, it is a bit too smug a gesture for an agnostic theist. Slash.
2) Science is a tool. It can be used to create things like oh you know, nairaland and the internet. Slash.
3) A tale with no proof is but a tale. Slash, Slash Slash, beheads post.
Ok done for now.

Good morning gentlemen (Martian, Kay17, ea7, jack65)
Your latest responses fell short of my opinion about you....perhaps i overated your capacity to truly defend your belief. Can i suggest something please, forget for now the fallacies of my claims and try to entice me into your faith by its beauty. I said so earlier that i have noticed most atheist on nairaland have no sound means of convincing a non believer of the correctness of their belief, rather what they do is what for the theist to painfully make a sound write up line upon line and off the atheist go picking up others claims and finding fault with it. Particularrly ea7 it was less disappointing for me when you said you are a young chap of 16, your post was just a waste of your time because you practically said nothing using so many words.

I'll prefer if you have no intelligent issues to raise to just read and follow the evolution of the discussions rather than fuss unecessarily.

The few things i've struggled to pick out of your posts are as follows

1. "...The bible is just a book of fables writen thousands of years by primitive men. This is very easy to see when you look at the contradictions and absurdities in the bible...." by Jack65 Jack, don't you think this is an unsubstantiated claim, i am not saying that you are wrong, but i mean give me the examples of what you call contradictions and absurdities.I'll be glad to listen to you, please make effort atheists not just to make claims but to also cite examples clearly so that we can resolve where the problem is coming from. What you are calling a contradictions may just be a limitation of your imagination and what you call absurdities may be linked to your personal analytic abilities. If you state these examples clearly i may be able to help you..just if i can. I rate you guys high in discussion and expect you should know that "claims posited without proofs will just as easily be de-posited without proofs" and that leaves us both in our darkness.

2. "...Comparing science to the bible is ridiculous just like..." by Jack65. Why is it ridiculous to compare the bible to science, science is a body of knowledge with accompanying textbooks for information, the bible is also a textbook of information comprising a body of knowledge. The bible is authored by men, while science texts are also authored by men. Tell me how i have erred in logic to compare both please.

3. "Like you rightly stated earlier, it takes more intelligence, common sense and of course more resarch to become an atheist" by Jack65 Jack i stand by that affirmation and even showed you why i believe that to be an atheist takes more of personal decision than parental direction in my very first post. However what i did not say is that i belief you are right by the conclusions you derive from your research. Yes you have personally researched, but just maybe you have been to harsh, hasty or just outrightly unrealistic by the conclusions you affirmed by your sound research. For example you are yet to show/tell me what information you have based on your science research that i am not aware of, nonetheless even with my awareness of those information i still share a conclusion not identical to yours. So yes i admit you have done a more diligent and inteligent research, but no i didn't say i agree with the conclusions your affirm.

4. "The authors of the bible were prisoners of their time, they couldn't have known what was beyond them and their methods..." by Kay17 This is a claim without proof
5. "The bible is filled with tales of the impossible and supernatural..." by Kay17 This is a claim without proof. Highlight one of those tales and let us talk about it.

6."Can knowledge be acquired via Faith?? My answer is NO" by Kay17 Kay17 this is the only sensible(no slight intended) statement in your post. But i am surprised you asked a question and you also answered it yourself, you would have shown yourself a bit more inteligent by simply asking me the question "Can knowledge be acquired via Faith?? and then we could have engaged ourselves in answering that. Nonetheless i will give you my own answer to the question. Most search/experimentation are based on a preconceived idea that the experimenter sets out to validate or invalidate. There is the popular saying of Thomas edison trying more than 1000 times to make the light bulb, what kept him going during his initial failures was his preconceived notion (faith) that what he wanted to achieve was possible. And in the process he aquired the knowledge not only of how to make electric bulbs but also of how not to try and make it. Hence you see how faith (a preconceived notion) can help your search and aquisition of knowledge? And many times too doubt can motivate people to search and aquire knowledge, but do you realize that doubt in an hypothesis is equivalent to faith/believe in the opposite of the hypothesis (eg doubt of ability of heavy flying man made objects is equivalent to faith/believe that heavy man made objects can can, that belive led the wright brothers in search and aquisition of knowledge of making airplanes which has tremendously improved since their time). No scientist goes into the lab experimenting without an objective (faith, pre-conceived notion), hence the basis for the search and development of knowledge is faith in something. However i admit there are FEW ocassions where people stumble unexpectedly on ideas they were not searching for (eg Newton and the concept of gravity, Archimedes and the theory of floatation), this is called happenstance in english and accounts for a minority of discoveries and evn in such cases they were not motivated by faith and neither by doubt.

7. "I got a question.Why don't you believe in the Wicca Book of Shadows?" by Martian As much as i respected you martian, i'm disappointed this is the only comment i consider a bit reasonable in your post. Atheists in the house, please rather than waste your time and that of the numerous guests on nairaland, if you don't have real issues to raise just read and learn, just follow the thread, its not compulsory you much show your ignorance. "Be silent and thought as wise than speak out and remove all doubts" Anyway martian can you please introduce me to this book of shadows, i ve never heard about it, why can't i belief in it if i know about it , evaluate it and find it worthy

8. ea7, please no slight intended, nothing you said requires response,take my advice for next time "Be silent and thought as wise than speak out and remove all doubts"

I invite you afresh to the proposal i earlier made

1. I know you belief what science says, just like me also ( a scientist by training), but what reasons do you have not to also belief what the bible says (forget about the concept of god for the main time, because neither the theist also have seen god, they rely on the bible to postulate about him/it).

2. Just the way we both share strong belief in science, i wonder why you choose not to belief in bible accounts like me also? Give reasons pls

3. Can you also please give evidences for your reasons in 2 above

4. I am convinced you are quite learned in the basis of your convictions, but just maybe there are certain misunderstandings we can help each other out of. Let us compare notes and see how we can help update each other. I am persuaded that believing in science and believing in bible are not mutually exclusive events, one can uphold both knowing fully well the applications and limitations of each

In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is at least 12 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed.
Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms
When the animals left the ark, what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find their way back after the flood subsided?
Jacob displays his (and God's) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats.
The bible says that hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof. But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not "chew the cud."
God's cure for snakebite: a brass serpent on a pole.
A dead body is brought to life when it accidentally touches the bones of Elisha.
God spread out the sky, which is a solid structure, hard and strong like a mirror.
According to the psalmist, snails melt. But they don't, of course, they simply leave a slimy trail as they move along.

@OP,
I must confess that I appreciate your maturity in addressing issues about the theist and atheist which m ore than I can say for othe believers, owever you must understand that most atheist were once CHRISTIANS (and a few moslems) and are therfore very familiar with biblical doctrines. Some of us have evn picked up arguments with people of other beliefs (athiests inclusive) and have been left with more questions than answers. You may be correct when you said being an atheist takes more effort than being a thiest but that is perculiar to our environment. If we were in an environment where God, spirituality and religion are so sensitive you will understand that it doesnt take much not to care if God existed or not. If the stories in the Bible were subjected to some common sense they will not stand. Take for instance the story of Noah and his flood. Except you want to agree that the flood was more localised than globalised you would agree that the concept of a global flood cannot add up. Why?
1) How did the Polar bear, grizzly bear, Kangaroo, koala bear, ant eater, sloth, panda, panther, lion, tiger etc move from their natural habitat through the hot desert in order to ride with Noah and survive anywhere else apart from their antural habitat, knowing fully well that most of these animals cannot survive any where else. Some of them do not even breed in captivity. The polar bear for instance would take years to move from the north pole to mesopotamia where the ark was supossedly constructed.
2) What happened to all the waters after the flood. The earth is a closed system hence the water should be somewhere within the system. A calculation done by some scientists confirmed that the volume of water required to flood the whole world covering the highest mountains (mt. everest) is about 30 times the volume currently available. i will stop here for now......

My post was a joke made at around 4:00 am. It wasn't meant to be serious. But kudos, by now a lesser soul would have descended to name calling cough buzugee cough . I'll reply later.

Thank you Kay17 for your patience and effort to articulate yourself this time. But though vast in the bible i can claim to be able to easily reference all verses under dispute. Can you remake your post indicating the reference of these statements, "The bible says that hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof...", "According to the psalmist, snails melt.." so that i can respond to them also. I have noticed that many atheists don't even know where the passages and stories they claim are contentious can be found in scriptures, they only carry those arguments as tools borrowed from their mentors to harrass the theist about their belief.Some of these statements unfortunately are maliciously taken out of context in order to disparage the theist belief eg is the passage from Daniel4:11 that i dealt with yersterday refering to the "ends of the earth"

Now to some of the stories that im farmiliar with and know where they are i'll try to help you undestand

1. "In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is at least 12 billion years old...." Yes science tells us that the universe is btw 15- 20 billion years from the big-bang. But so interesting is my personal findings that scientists are still bothered about what triggered the big-bang. The big-bang was an explosion of an infinitely dense particle of matter leading to the creation and expansion of the planets stars etc. Scientist are yet to explain where these material that exploded during the big-bang came from or for how long it has been existing before the appropriate conditions for the big-bang to occur was achieved. Hence it seems to me that scientists agree that the universe came to be by the aid (disintegration/ expansion) of something which was not part of the universe itself. Agreed?

Now going to the bible account, i explained in my very first post the concept of 6 days, viz - à - viz 2Pet3:3, (please refer to that argument) the writer MAY not necessarily mean 6 earth-days considering for example that 1 pluto day is about 350 earth-years, if for the meantime we assume heaven is a planet in our galaxy much further away from pluto, then it is not impossible to achieve a scenario where 1 heaven-day is equal to 1000+ earth-years. Unless you can proof to me that the writer of Genesis definitely means 6 earth-days, you would be turning logic on its head to say the bible claims the earth was made in 6 earth days. If you look at Gen 1 from the understanding of 2Pet3:3, your claim that the bible said the earth was made in 6 earth days seems faulty.

Furthermore, Genesis is generally refered to as the book of the beginning, but then, the begining of what? It is not necessarily the begining of the universe, but perhaps the begining of a new order, perhaps a renewal or refurbishment of the face of the earth. Take note that Gen1:1 says "in the begining God created the heavens and the earth. (verse2) the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the surface of the deep...and the spirit of god was hovering upon the waters" Between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2 is a period/space of time long/short that the bible never told us about because he would not have created the heavens and the earth and left it as formless and void. some events are likely to have happened to render the initial creation formless and void. Also take note that according to the bible, WATER was not one of the things newly created, water already existed Gen1:3"...and the spirit of god was hovering upon the waters. And god said let there be..." This is further prove that the original creation of the universe happened long ago before the creation account described in Gen1:3-26. The space of time between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2 may be what science is helping us today to know, hence Gen1 did not in any way say that it is impossible for the earth to be 20billion years old. You see my friend how proper understanding can change your perception, that is why i don't downplay the bible despite my vasteness in science because i am aware of the applications and limitations of each tool.

2. "Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved..." see brother you have the perception of instantaneous creation of man based on your interpretation of 6 earth-day creation in which man was made on the sixth day. But if you for example give my exposition a place in your mind for a moment that perharp the writer was using 6 heaven-days (equivalent to 6000 earth years as discussed earlier), that would mean that the creation account was not instantaneous at all. Also if you study Gen1 very well, the order of creation day-after day was vegetation then, water creatures, then birds, then land creatures and lastly man. Does this sequence not fit into a creation era that spans at least 6000 years and begins with the simple to the complex?
Hence you are right, humans were not created instantaneously, the bible didn't say so, man was like the latter part of a creation era spanning at least 6000years which began with creation of simple life forms gradually into the creation of more complex life forms.
Regarding your assertion that man was not made from dust and breath... that is what you need to proof to me. Take note that evolution is a theory just like gravity. A theory is not necessarily the truth, rather it is an acceptable explanation to a phenomenon based on observation/experimentation. I am sure that you are aware that newton's theory of gravity is not as useful in space mechanics as eistein's theory of relativity, nonetheless we still use newtonian mechanics with motion on earth because its explanations work here. So then what if the theory of evolution truly explains certain transitions but not all transitions( just the same way newton gravity fails when you start to study the mechanics of planetary bodies especially the singularity/black-hole). I put it to you to give me infallible proofs beyond loud assertions that man was not made from dust and breath.

3. "A dead body is brought to life when it accidentally touches the bones of Elisha." That is supernatural and i believe in it, or were you there in the past to witness it did not happen. Your duty now is to proof to me that the account did not happen. The fact you don't believe in something doesn't make it false, you have to proof it to be false in order to have audience.

4. "God's cure for snakebite: a brass serpent on a pole." Also supernatural, can you proof it never happened?

5. "Jacob displays his (and God's) knowledge of biology by having goats Reproduce while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats" This account is in Gen30:30-40, but my brother did you take the pains to read just a bit further down Gen31:6-12, you will realize his use of spotted rod was merely symbolic, what happened was that god altered the mating pattern of the animals such that it was mostly the strong spotted males that mated with the females. And then scintifically, spotted males mate with females, most likely results are spotted baby goats. You see yourself now, most times what you atheist call absurdities are realities over which you need enlightenement. So why not ask questions more rather than outrightly condemn.

Oro-Agba:
Good morning gentlemen (Martian, Kay17, ea7, jack65)
Your latest responses fell short of my opinion about you....perhaps i overated your capacity to truly defend your belief. Can i suggest something please, forget for now the fallacies of my claims and try to entice me into your faith by its beauty. I said so earlier that i have noticed most atheist on nairaland have no sound means of convincing a non believer of the correctness of their belief, rather what they do is what for the theist to painfully make a sound write up line upon line and off the atheist go picking up others claims and finding fault with it. Particularrly ea7 it was less disappointing for me when you said you are a young chap of 16, your post was just a waste of your time because you practically said nothing using so many words.

What faith? What belief? I am not trying to convert you to anything, just pointing out that your bible only matters to people who have faith that it's true. To me, its just another religious text amongst many, So have your own opinions concerning the infallibility of the bible, it doesn't have affect empirical facts.

Oro-Agba:

7. "I got a question.Why don't you believe in the Wicca Book of Shadows?" by Martian As much as i respected you martian, i'm disappointed this is the only comment i consider a bit reasonable in your post. Atheists in the house, please rather than waste your time and that of the numerous guests on nairaland, if you don't have real issues to raise just read and learn, just follow the thread, its not compulsory you much show your ignorance. "Be silent and thought as wise than speak out and remove all doubts" Anyway martian can you please introduce me to this book of shadows, i ve never heard about it, why can't i belief in it if i know about it , evaluate it and find it worthy

So my assertion that the bible is not science is unreasonable? Don't make me laugh man. Anyway, the book of shadows is a Wiccan religious text and the adherents of the Wicca religion will proclaim that it is true and infallible just like you do with your religious text. At the end of the day, only believers in a particular religion believe in their books, so just like you wouldn't accept a wiccan's claims about his holy book, don't expect anyone who doesnt share your faith to take your book seriously.
Lastly, you're not saying anything new or insightful, just the same brain dead arguments. E.g the bible says the earth is a circle, so that means the people who wrote it knew it was spherical.

A Circle and a sphere are NOT the same.

Just like you haven't heard of the book of shadows, there are people who have never heard of your bible, and guess what? They also have their own creation stories, and saviours.

I can take your argument, add Allah and the Quran, and it becomes a brain dead argument for Islam.

@Oro Agba

Can you describe God without using your religious text, anecdotes,, personal beliefs and convictions? Or is your god limited to the bible and Christian faith?

Oro-Agba:


1. "In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is at least 12 billion years old...." Yes science tells us that the universe is btw 15- 20 billion years from the big-bang. But so interesting is my personal findings that scientists are still bothered about what triggered the big-bang. The big-bang was an explosion of an infinitely dense particle of matter leading to the creation and expansion of the planets stars etc. Scientist are yet to explain where these material that exploded during the big-bang came from or for how long it has been existing before the appropriate conditions for the big-bang to occur was achieved. Hence it seems to me that scientists agree that the universe came to be by the aid (disintegration/ expansion) of something which was not part of the universe itself. Agreed?

Now going to the bible account, i explained in my very first post the concept of 6 days, viz - à - viz 2Pet3:3, (please refer to that argument) the writer MAY not necessarily mean 6 earth-days considering for example that 1 pluto day is about 350 earth-years, if for the meantime we assume heaven is a planet in our galaxy much further away from pluto, then it is not impossible to achieve a scenario where 1 heaven-day is equal to 1000+ earth-years. Unless you can proof to me that the writer of Genesis definitely means 6 earth-days, you would be turning logic on its head to say the bible claims the earth was made in 6 earth days. If you look at Gen 1 from the understanding of 2Pet3:3, your claim that the bible said the earth was made in 6 earth days seems faulty..

This is too funny to pass up. Today I learned that the christain heaven could be a planet in this galaxy(amongst billions) that is possibly part of the solar system orbiting our sun. This explains the one day being like a thousand years to the lord. Since one Pluto day is 350 earth years and one Heavenly day is a thousand years on earth, by this calculation, jesus has only be gone for two heavenly days and 2000 earth years.

[quote author=Oro-Agba]

1. "...The bible is just a book of fables writen thousands of years by primitive men. This is very easy to see when you look at the contradictions and absurdities in the bible...." by Jack65 Jack, don't you think this is an unsubstantiated claim, i am not saying that you are wrong, but i mean give me the examples of what you call contradictions and absurdities.I'll be glad to listen to you, please make effort atheists not just to make claims but to also cite examples clearly so that we can resolve where the problem is coming from. What you are calling a contradictions may just be a limitation of your imagination and what you call absurdities may be linked to your personal analytic abilities. If you state these examples clearly i may be able to help you..just if i can. I rate you guys high in discussion and expect you should know that "claims posited without proofs will just as easily be de-posited without proofs" and that leaves us both in our darkness.]

"Unsubstantiated claim" I am really baffled that someone as intelligent as you aperently are have not discovered the inconsistencies, contrdictions, absurdities and ancronisims in the bible. I would have loved to give you many examples but I replying this from my phone so I will rather direct you to where you can find all the examples you need. These are scepticsanotatedbible.com, whywontgodhealamputees.com for starters (I will post more when I get to a computer) I challange you to actually go through these sites before you come back to comment again.

I mentioned common sense, but I can now deduce that this is an alien phrase to appologetics like you. Why is common sense not enugh to stay away from god and religion. Everything we know today about the christian god is based entirely on the bible, that's why the bible claimed inerreancy as the infallible word of god. But extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, the bible is like tetimonies, thus the integrity of the source of the testimonial is of utmost importance because that's what makes us trust what it is telling us. We all know that the bible makes extraordinary claims, like talking donkies and snakes, raising the dead, fire falling from heaving, parting the sea and walking on water to name but a few, so we should demand that the incredible stories demand impeccable integrity on behalf of the storyteller to be believed.

However if the bible is discovered to be errant and the work of men not god as originally claimed then it shatters all the belief and trust we had on its contents. Remember there is no middle ground, no gray area. Either the bible is inspired by God or it is not. "partially inspired" won't cut it. The uninitiated would naturally and common sensically expect these "inspired" books to be different, accurate, informative and awe-inspiring. Surely a work written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit would be clearly distinct from the works of mere mortals. However absurdities like god telling people that if there son does not respect them, they should call the villagers to stone their son to death and god actually claiming he created evil and much more is just to much for me.

[For example you are yet to show/tell me what information you have based on your science research that i am not aware of,]

See above examples. If the bible which told us everything we know about the christian god is proven to be errant then it simply means that all the fantastic and extraordinary stories and everything it says about god are mere mythology.

[nonetheless even with my awareness of those information i still share a conclusion not identical to yours]

This is why I said that you are suffering from Cognitive dissonace. Please this is not an insult, google it.

[So yes i admit you have done a more diligent and inteligent research, but no i didn't say i agree with the conclusions your affirm]

You are free to chose what you believe, likewsie me. I was born a christian but after some research came to the conclusion that there can't be any god. Thus it was very hard for me suspend my disbelief.

["The bible is filled with tales of the impossible and supernatural..." by Kay17 This is a claim without proof. Highlight one of those tales and let us talk about it.]

Are you serious? The bible is full of them, consider the few I mentioned above.

Oro-Agba:
thehomer the staunch atheist, one of the big problems i have observed with the atheist community on nairaland is that they rarely make a strong case from first principles for their convictions, they are most times simply waiting for a theist to make a submission and off they go taking the points one-after the other and raising questions about it.

Aren't the tool and results of science a strong case against the veracity of the Bible? Also, you could address the objections raised. That is how discussions or arguments progress.

Oro-Agba:

Rather than flagging my submission one-after the other i will like you to first understand me fully ( i re-summarize my main points below) and then respond to me in your own words rather than flagging and faulting mine)

You may notice that I post that way in order not to skip any important points you have made and to demonstrate to you that I have read your post in its entirety. Also, why re-summarize your posts when I've responded to it? You need to respond to my responses otherwise I may as well simply repeat myself.

Oro-Agba:

1. i admit it takes more rational and conscious self decision to be atheist than to be theist

I agree.

Oro-Agba:

2. Whether i am atheist or theist i think is secondary at this point, we may simply like to focus on the observations raised

Of course.

Oro-Agba:

3. This observations include that science never claims to be all knowing, because its conclusions evolve and things which were false yersterday are now true today and who knows may become false again tomorrow( eg pluto: a planet once, not a planet anymore; atom smallest indivisible part of matter while i was in secondary school, but today not anymore, there are now photons which are smaller than atoms etc)

This shows a misunderstanding of what science is. Science isn't a person like God is supposed to be, it is more like a tool or method which we've found to be reliable.
Pluto is no longer a planet due to definition. It isn't like Pluto disappeared. The same idea applies to atoms. You could take a look at the modern definition of atoms.

Oro-Agba:

4.Theists (eg christians) claim that their source (bible) is infallible

Yes they do. And they're wrong of course.

Oro-Agba:

5. Coincidentally a few things which this alleged infallible source claims long ago later gets affirmed by science (re-refer to my original posts for the examples)

Please refer to my responses to your posts showing why your statement is wrong.

Oro-Agba:

6. Why do you think therefore in any subject where bible and science conflicts, that i would be wrong to follow the bible? Following science, tomorrow it may come and proclaim another conclusion based on new findings.

You would be wrong because many of the claims made in the Bible have been demonstrated to be wrong or simply mythical. I've also given examples of this.

Oro-Agba:

Please forget the issue of first cause for now, we will get to that later, that is not my point yet, my point is to help us explore which is a more credible source of evidence in subjects where bible and science have conflicting conclusions: the theist bible or the atheist science considering points 3-5 above

Sure. I can give you a list of claims in the Bible and you can tell me which ones you find credible.

Oro-Agba, I don't believe in anything so I can't be of help to you.
Hell was pleasant and Nkechi wants to extend her gratitude because it's been more than 3 months since her black hole was visited.
What do you think of white holes? I am travelling to UK soon and a certain Jessica told me that hers is simply heaven. Do you agree? Should I try or is it another false prophesy?

Logic Mind: Oro-Agba, I don't believe in anything so I can't be of help to you.
Hell was pleasant and Nkechi wants to extend her gratitude because it's been more than 3 months since her black hole was visited.
What do you think of white holes? I am travelling to UK soon and a certain Jessica told me that hers is simply heaven. Do you agree? Should I try or is it another false prophesy?

Facepalm

Oro-agba, I have to say, how come miracles and supernatural events happen only in the holy books and not in reality. You have to admit that is a little fishy.

ea7: Oro-agba, I have to say, how come miracles and supernatural events happen only in the holy books and not in reality. You have to admit that is a little fishy.

I would also add that black holes do smell a bit fishy.

@logicmind lol
@OP i forgot to say this, what is the point of writing a book that no one understands, what then is the point. I f the book has to be interpreted by jumping about and somersaulting from chapter 6- chapter 2- chapter 9 (again buzugee). And interpreting several terms out of their conventional uses. The book is incomprehensible. Silly from a human and just plain absurd^10000000... from an omniscient being.

@logicmind lol
@OP i forgot to say this, what is the point of writing a book that no one understands, what then is the point. I f the book has to be interpreted by jumping about and somersaulting from chapter 6- chapter 2- chapter 9 (again buzugee). And interpreting several terms out of their conventional uses. The book is rendered incomprehensible. Silly from a human and ten different types of absurd from an omniscient being.