₦airaland Forum

ubunja:
you just got your first real definition of what FAITH is.

No, that's not what faith is... not at all.

Faith is the act of forming or understanding ideas or beliefs without empirical evidence or observation.

A faithful believer will not say whether God is alive or dead cannot be proved, you don't even understand the concept. In your religion, the version of God there is alive, and that belief is held ardently. But you just said you don't know. That's really hilarious.

Yours is not even faith, it is confusion.

ubunja:
dude. You are wasting time.
You said God doesn't exist coz He can't be proved.
I told you YES he can't be proved. But I believe in Him still.
Where is your confusion?

And when I say He can't be proved I MEAN IT. so don't ask if he's alive or dead. Coz neither can be proved.


If you don't understand this, then your stupidity just got an upgrade.

Lol, you don't have an intelligible answer to if God is alive or dead? So you don't even know whether what you believe in exist or not?

This sums up the fact that you're a stupid, blind follower. I knew we were going to get to the point where your foolhardiness and your inanity will be clear for everyone to see. Good day

Martinez39:
Anyone that believes in god and is still asking if he said god was alive really puts a lot of mud in the water. As a religious man, you need not say god is alive because all religious gods are supposedly alive. Anyways on this topic of god, I don commot hand for your matter.

Lol

sino:
It is so funny how these guys can be so dogmatic, imagine a whole research that did not in any way talk about abiogenesis, is what Mr. Biochemist wants to hold on to has evidence, even after showing that the research depended on intelligence and life all through! But what can I say....

Thanks bro, one needs such when dealing with these set of 'evangelical' atheist...

How did a synthetic genome synthesized from synthetic chemicals depend on life? Was the synthetic genome borne out of life or was it produced from life? Secondly, all the processes it passed through, did any of them changed the integrity of the synthetic genome in any way? Was the synthetic genome less synthetic after it was produced?

ubunja:
you are slow. That's why you modify your messages too much and respond to me two times. Refer to the first instance above.

I know I am slow by whatever standards you say. But the. Does that answer my question?

You're only doing ad hominem fallacy over over again by calling people names. Answer the questions, it doesn't matter how many times it is asked, if you had answered ones you can't be asked again.

You didn't say God is alive, and that's why you have been asked. Is God alive or dead?

ubunja:
you are not gona get those answers. Just chill in your stupidity.

Are you going to answer me sir? Your question below

ubunja:
and at which point did I say God is alive?

To which I replied

Akin1212:
That's why I am asking these questions. Is God dead?
If you're not saying he is alive, then you're saying he is dead!
He is either dead or alive!
Inanimate or animate.

Or is there a form of existence we don't know about?

ubunja:
and at which point did I say God is alive?

That's why I am asking these questions. Is God dead?
If you're not saying he is alive, then you're saying he is dead!
He is either dead or alive!
Inanimate or animate.

Or is there a form of existence we don't know about?

ubunja:
What does ALIVE have to do with all those definitions?

Because anything that is alive, is tangible as defined by all those definitions. But if you know something that's capable of being alive but not tangible, you can as well tell us here so we can verify it.

ubunja:
What does ALIVE have to do with all those definitions?

Because anything that is alive, is tangible as defined by all those definitions.

ubunja:
Tangible = "can be touched". NOW which church promotes God as tangible? Not your own fake tangible.

Tangible does not have just one meaning.
Tangible = can be touched,
Tangible = actual, capable of being understood and evaluated and therefore regarded as real.
Tangible = able to be realized, capable of being given a physical existence.

Now, if God is able to be alive and can also handle tangible, real things. Is God tangible or real?

I'm guessing your answer is no? Let's move on to the next step of clearing your fantasy.

ubunja:
stupid is only an insult to the stupid.

Lol, answer the question bro. If God is alive and able to handle tangible things, is he tangible or not?

We have not even started because you're not answering the most important question here, despite that Ibhave answered all your questions.
At the end, we'll know who is stupid. Whether it's someone who believes in something that has zero evidence or someone who rejects something that has zero evidence.

Please answer the question.

ubunja:
what truth is that?
That there is no evidence that God exists?
Is it not what I have been telling your dumb self? You waste time.

This quality of raining insults on a faceless forum must be a gift to you from God, innit?

ubunja:
I asked you WHICH CHURCH PROMOTES GOD AS TANGIBLE?
don't waste time.

And I answered you. I said all churches do that.

How, you may ask? They said, God is alive, has a son, capable of having emotions(anger, jealousy etc), capable of touching people, capable of delivering judgement, capable of creating real and tangible things.

But the question is, a being that is alive, and capable of handling tangible things, is he tangible or not?

You should consider answering the question instead of responding with another question.

Martinez39:
Ubunja and akin1212, there is no need to quarrel. Let the discussion not stray from maturity.

You know when people can't face the truth, they start doing the ad hominem fallacy. I won't even insult him because it's Valentine and I'm in a good mood .

Let him keep raining insults, it only shows his inadequacy and his level of maturity.

ubunja:
go back to school and learn the differences between LIFE and ALIVE and what REAL and TANGIBLE mean.

my statement is not real = alive. I never said that. Everything that is real is not necessarily alive, but everything that is alive is real or tangible, isn't it?

So if God is alive, is he real or tangible?

It's not rocket science, you know?

ubunja:
so to you REAL = ALIVE?
don't be stupid. I keep warning you.

You are asking a really stupid question, my statement is not real = alive. I never said that. Everything that is real is not necessarily alive, but everything that is alive is real or tangible, isn't it?

So if God is alive, is he real or tangible?

Perhaps you're the stupid one for thinking like that.

ubunja:
You are stupid
--------------------------------------

ADJECTIVE
perceptible by touch.
"the atmosphere of neglect and abandonment was almost tangible"
NOUN
(tangibles)
a thing that is perceptible by touch.
"these are the only tangibles upon which an assessment can be made"

Lol, I am trying my best not to respond with insults. And I won't.
The definition of tangible is exactly what you have posted. But there are others.

Everything in the world that exists is tangible.

Another meaning is Actual, capable of being understood and evaluated, and therefore regarded as real

Then there is also something that is capable of being given a physical existence


Now, life has all these characteristics, if you really know what life means.

But the question is, a God that is alive and created tangible, physical things, is he tangible or not?

I believe you that is not stupid can answer me that is stupid.

ubunja:
tangible has nothing to do with life. Don't be stupid.

Lol, tangible has everything to do with life. Do you even know what life is?

Name something that is alive and intangible?

ubunja:
in your dictionary tangible = living?

Are you misrepresenting my statements? Is God tangible or not? Is God alive?

Amakavula:
Read about the Black Swan CAPSLOCKED you will understand why I believe in God. Nobody believe the black swan existed, and every swan was white until they were found in Australia. There are instances of Magic and Juju so therefore there has to be a God .

Lol, black swan exist, therefore God exists? Seems to me like ignorance.

ubunja:
Which church promotes God as tangible?

All churches. Is God not a living being anymore?

ubunja:
Which church promotes God as tangible?

All churches. Is God not a living being anymore?

ubunja:
which church promotes God as tangible?

Lmao, is God intangible? Is he a being or not?

ubunja:
so if there is no evidence your wife is cheating on you it means she is not cheating?

You people who believe in God always mix things up, that's why it's always hard for you to see that there's nothing like God. No wonder some of you always ask if sense exists to justify your belief in god.

Now, let's take it one after the other. I said, anything that does not have evidence of existence, is not existent.

Please note: God, as being promoted is tangible and cheating is not a tangible object.

1. There's no correlation between God and cheating. A God who created everything would be a tangible object and not an abstract term such as cheating. Cheating is not a thing, it's a term for an action. Except if you agree that God is also a term and not a thing, that is when we can place it side by side in the same boat with cheating. Do we worship cheating? Does it have a son? Does it give us rules on how to live? Come on, you can do better, please.

2. Cheating cannot exist, it can only happen when someone is not faithful. If you're going to agree that God is not tangible, then I won't need to debate this with you. If God is just a term and not something that has a kingdom, and an uncountable number of angels, then there's no point for this argument.

3. Even if we're to betray logic and favor sentiments, let's assume that God and cheating are analogues (we already know that it is illogical to do so). If cheating is investigated, inspected and looked at critically, you will see the evidence. After investigating, if there's no evidence, she's probably not cheating. But this God of yours has been investigated and objectively looked at critically with an objective aim to certify the absolute truth, he or she came back as non existent. Everything claimed to be created by this God has been found to come into existence through another means.

Find time to sit and think deeply. We are more than this your average thinking. Thanks.

ubunja:
to which I told him there is none.
What part of that statement did you not understand?

Anything that does not have evidence of existence is non existent.

sino:
Venter and his team, had to use living organisms to achieve their goal. They had intelligence, they had a plan and they had the advantage of advanced technology and favourable conditions which can not be said to be same in the primitive earth. Yet, to make a genome, they depended on a living yeast cell, then a living bacterial cell to check the genome for errors, and then transplant the tested genome into another living bacterial cell! This proves that life is actually needed to make another life! What Venter and his team did is not abiogenesis!

Do you even understand why the yeast cell was used? Lol, you will not kill me with laughter. The yeast cell was used for genome assembly. This could have been done in vitro, but it would cost money and time, hence the use of the yeast. Let me quickly address your Baloneys again.

1. They got synthetic chemicals and used it to synthesize a synthetic genome. Which was the theme of the research.

2. They used advanced technology, because without it, the research would have costed more money and time.

3. The conditions of the early earth or primitive earth is different from the one we have now and it has been established.

4. They used bacteria cell to check for errors in the 'synthetic or artificial genome' they created. This doesn't make the genome natural, it was still artificial.

5. They removed the natural genome from the bacterial cell and put the artificial genome, the artifical genome was able to do what the natural genome was doing. Which is the maintenance and perpetuation of life.

6. Abiogenesis is the theory of how life arose from simple organic chemicals or compounds.

Conclusion: The basics of the research carried out by Craig Venter and his team was the creation of synthetic genome from scratch using synthetic chemicals. How they assembled the genome, and how they checked for errors didn't make the genome any less synthetic, after checking errors with a bacteria cell and assembling with a yeast cell, the genome was still 100% synthetic or artificial. Their research was to prove that life arose from simple organic molecules, and it was successful, this proves abiogenesis to be true. Craig Venter might have studied the genome of the bacteria they were trying to create its genome, the aim was to show that life arose from chemicals and not any intelligence. Guess what? They did it successfully, this eliminates the God factor.

sino:
You need not be informed how a computer was invented before you believe that it was, and it would be foolish of you even if you do not understand the processes and mechanism of how it was invented to start arguing that it came to be by random chance. So far, the experiments you hold on to are quite showing the impossibility of these nonliving chemicals to just come together by chance and become a living organism, without any intelligence directing it so as to reach the level of complexity we now have, especially in man. That there is a creator of life is quite simple to understand and believe, and it is a universal truth!

So far, the research of Craig Venter has shown that life arose from organic molecules. Your denial cannot change that. I understand though that you are so hung up to your indoctrination and hence will reject scientific research or theories based on facts. That there is a creator of life is not a universal truth. It is your thought and your fantasy, because you cannot understand the principle of abiogenesis doesn't make creation a truth. It is nothing but a bold claim.

If you were to be a thinking man, you'd sit for a minute and think if an intelligent creator would create bacteria or other parasitc organisms at all? Or you don't know the biological importance of bacteria and microorganisms?

Now that you have claimed that a creator exist, can you give us a peer reviewed paper, factual, realistic, hypothetical mechanism of how life started on earth, that serves as an alternative to abiogenesis, that is testable and universally true?

sino:
Allah (SWT), The Creator Says:

"Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?

Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain." (Qur'an 52: 35-36)

If life is this difficult for the supposed intelligent man with all the advancement in science and technology, to be certain of how it came to be on this earth, is it then the origin of the universe that is certainly proven?!

A theory or hypothesis that is backed by experiments is not to be believed. Craig Venter and his team created a genome from a mix of chemicals that can maintain and perpetuate life. That alone demonstrated the creation of life from chemicals. That's abiogenesis. It doesn't need faith to be accepted, I have said all I needed to say about that. Now it's your turn to give us observable evidence like abiogenesis presented.

Is this the factual, realistic, hypothetical mechanism of how life started on earth, that serves as an alternative to abiogenesis, that is testable and universally true? Allah and quranic verses?

TheRevivalist:
Before you talk, read carefully and understand well!!

I don't need to make myself happy by seeing the news and media stories about our "activities" . if you read well "mr know it all" you'll see I said "news and media" which entails a body of event happenings and informations in data and not "POPULATION" that you changed it to.

you know He isn't real right? So why wake up, pick up your phone and start cracking your head to make up epistles just so to prove something you "know" doesn't exist, doesn't exist do you need to create discussion and seek people's views and opinions from arguments before you are satisfied that God isn't real? for God sake, there are many profitable things you could do with your life. wait how come you are even able to gather all these things you call "facts" about who you said doesn't exist? You really know Him ooo or better still have "His" time.

atheist are the smallest in population worldwide and have little or no impact they are adding to the world. "religious" countries and people are by far more progressive.

you people criticize big churches and rich ministers about not helping their members asif they are the ones you voted to power, ignorant of the various empowerment platforms the Churches individually created for her members, and how will you know? When you don't even attend any? So don't argue.

atheists are just a group of confused people suffering from one emotional trauma caused by their family foundational problems that they couldnt solve and are now transferring the aggressions to believers. all atheists have dark pasts behind the atheism. you guys commit most of the suicide world wide and are the most unsettled because you are always angry at everything and everyone for not being like you.
but still it doesn't give u the right to corrupt or criticize other people's views. weren't you thought in school to always respect it? I guess I should expect nothing less from a misguided sheep.

those who say that there is no God, are DYING.
accept Him now and be saved!!! Jesus Christ is Waiting to forgive and accept you regardless of your sinful state.
better still go and do something meaningful with your life to show the world you are better or maybe solve her problems to prove your selves instead of hiding behind so called "epistles".

feel free to look for what you can quote from all I've said so far to use to continue pushing your pointless discussion.

I pray you see HIS LIGHT while it's still around you.

Trash, you type baloney thinking you make sense?

How does talking about gods means gods exist? Do you think at all? I talk about all the gods, so which of them exists? Then I suppose talking about Spiderman or Santa also mean they exist. Use your head to think, it's not by typing long posts and quoting the bible.

Deepocean:
One of the challenges that have being complicating the reality of God and His existence to you is that you are too rigid in accepting all the physical things that have proven the existence of God and I keep on wondering the type of proof that you still want to know, the Bible and the Quran that you are pretending not to believe in have lots to proof that God exist, let me start from the Bible and take you to what is happening in our own generation now. The first man and woman that existed on earth was created by God, and then they were able to see Him face to face, they communicated, hugged, had handshake and did other things physically, but they abuse that privilege , it's a pity they aren't alive to come and confirm this, but since you believe that nobody existed has Adam, Eve, Abraham, David e.t.c, I won't dwell on that, but if you can do yourself a favour, visit isreal or make your research, then you will see people confirming it for you themselves that they are lineage of all these people you don't believe in their existence.

With the advancement of technology I think human should be able to create life that will be a concrete proof that God doesn't exist, but science they haven't been able to do so, life didn't come by chance, it's purely spiritual not even physical, the spiritual only gave birth to the physical that we are seeing, if you are to be sincere with yourself and I, you must have heard if not seen of dead that have risen after days which physical means is responsible for this? Noises from the environment or what? I don't know the part of the country you are from or the part of the world you are from, there was a popular Nigeria musician that died and rose and gave his experiences of his adventure on life after life before he died again, you may still want to use sciectific illogical fallacies to proof this wrong, but that doesn't change the truth,

I'm a science person, but I have not heard or seen the laboratory preparation of drinkable water in the laboratory, can the reason been that the chemical combination is so simple to what scientists do not want to waste their time on? NO.

Scientists are only finding knowledge concerning what has been in existing, scientists can't create anything, they can only reproduce something from what God has created through a means that is highly beyond what our small brain can comprehend. there's no way we can have access to all this thing apart from the physical means.

But if God doesn't exist, will there be any spelling like GOD, or will there be any thought as regards the existence or nonexistence of God?

I believe in Miracle, because I have seen where miracle occurred, and this is as a result of supernatural power and forces controlled by the supreme being GOD.

Where is God? Show an irrefutable, factual, realistic and empirical proof of God. And show a plausible, hypothetical mechanism of how this God created life. We are waiting...

sino:
I said you were discombobulated, but you are actually delusional! Go back and read my post properly, read my initial post on DNA replication and then my referenced quote. It wasn't "my" headline, but a subheading in a textbook of biochemistry! It is funny how you a nobody with absolutely no research worth mentioning to criticize a textbook written by Professors of Biochemistry, please what type of weed are you on?! Perhaps when you write your own textbook like never on Biochemistry, you might have a point here!




I thought as much, you are probably a fresh graduate with little or no contribution to research. No wonder the many gaffes, and your difficulty to access journals that aren't free! The taught of you teaching me anything is ridiculous, while I was pointing you to exclusive journals and textbooks, you were busy googling, going to wiki and quoting news blogs and science mags...



Gosh! I even made it easy by giving you a hint...Is the DNA replication not precise (accurate) in the base pairing of the nucleotides so that A bonds to T and G to C?! Isn't that the reason for the complementarity of the DNA molecule and the replication is said to be semi-conservative?! I knew you would make another gaffe, I am not surprised at all! You do not have the capacity to argue this, the facts are clear, and not only Lehninger uses the word 'accurate', but also other biochemistry textbooks! But here you are, arguing blindly, like you always do!

Lastly,

"B. Chemical Evolution

In the remainder of this section, we describe the most widely favored scenario for the origin of life.Keep in mind, however, that there are valid scientific objections to this scenario as well as to the several others that have been seriously entertained, so that we are far from certain as to how life arose." (Biochemistry, Voet & Voet)

Real science deals with real data and empirical evidences, but a blind faith in science needs just an assumption from a scientist, and it becomes true! Talk of believing in fantasies.....

I have said all I needed to say about abiogenesis, accept it or not! Your choice. I'm done with going back and forth with an unrepentant ignorant fellow who does not want to learn.

Give us a factual, realistic, hypothetical mechanism of how life started on earth, that serves as an alternative to abiogenesis, that is testable and universally true. We are waiting...

tintingz:
You want scientists to just replicate something that happened billions years ago just like that? And besides it has been gradually done by scientists already, I wonder why you're been dishonest here.

A cell evolve and when something evolve it means it's not perfect, so a perfect all-knowng creator is an illusion here, such creator is learning and evolving in intelligence or better still such creator did not created the cell perfectly.

There is no room for perfection in evolution!

You don't need to even argue that such creator is imperfect. The creator whether perfect or otherwise should be provided with empirical evidence. When the evidence of such creator is available, then we will look at how intelligent or stupid the creator is. You cannot just claim that a creator exists. The research of creating the molecules that maintains and perpetuates life was clear. But the guy is just so obviously dishonest and is desperate to include a strange intelligence as the designer. It is a very stupid position.

TheRevivalist:
Serious there's a level you'll get to spiritually that you won't need to argue about God anymore.

One who has a discussion full of write-ups like this for Him lol. if someone can take his/her time to do this then it shows HE IS REAL.

besides 99.9999 pecent of the world news and media is about CHRISTIANITY and Her activities, what more do you want?

So because people write long epistles to disprove God means God is real? You christians have a level of ignorance that is very amusing.

99.9999 percent of the world news and media is about Christianity ? Lol, is this how you make yourself happy? The christians in the world are not even up to 50%.