₦airaland Forum

Rilwayne001:
Atheism is simply foolishness. As much as it is illogical to assume that a motor car cannot come into existence by itself, it is so illogical to assume nothing is behind all that exist. Even having to doubt the existence of the brain behind all that exist is illogical.

There's always something behind nothing. And the first cause is the definition of existence itself.

If so, then whay caused the first cause? Lol, you see that theism is the real foolishness here.

You believe that there was nothing behind the existence of God, and you're here calling those who hypothesized the same thing with logical reasons fools.

It is foolish for a fool to not know he is foolish.

Rashduct4luv:
My logical reason is from the Book of Qur'an and Hadith!

No machine was ever created by "nobody''!

Accidents never produces orderliness!

There is a master designer up in Heaven!

Your logical reason is from the Qur'an? No bro, that's faith not logic.

Living things are not machines. We have life.

Accidents, you dont understand what accident means at all. Accident is a word with many meanings. I will help you by posting a dictionary definition.

There is no master designer in heaven. You have only assumed there is.

Meanwhile, I'll hold on and let tintingz deal with you while I see more of your dishonesty, bias and ignorance.

JMAN05:
Well, if you do understand what "ability" is, you will note that someone can have a certain ability, but might not use it ALWAYS. Evidence shows that God do not always use this ability. For eg, assuming you have a visit from your friends, you have the ability to see all they wore, but the truth is that you mght not give attention to all they are wearing. at times, it is only when someone tells you, "do you see that belt your friend had on", you might say, "well, didnt see it or i didnt give attention to what belt he is wearing, ok, let me go and check".

So, that someone has a certain ability, does not mean the person will always use it.

Yes, God evidently did not use that ability after creating Adam and Eve nor before. He was creating free moral agents. No need to peer into what choice they will make. Adam and Eve were perfect, so they have greater possibility of choosing to do right than to do wrong.

- Does it go against the concept of a God? That question i think will elicit different answers depending on anybody's perception of what a God should be. I dont see it as going against the concept of a God. I only see it as evidence of a creator who is loving. Had he made me in a way that my default decision will always be to obey and follow him. He would have overridden my intelligence and free will. of course, there wouldn't be atheists, nor sinners. I see it as loving for each of us to decide his or her own fate.

Lots of you theists really fail to see this flaw and it surprises me always. A God who has ability to do something and does not do it to avoid mistakes is tending towards imperfections. And that's why this flaw will continue to linger on your God. A perfect God will not create something or take an action and later regret it. Never! It boils down to perfection. No one is perfect, nobody is. Not even your imaginary God can be.

We are talking about the concept of a God, it is very wrong of you to have used an analogy of the ability of humans. We know humans are not perfect and we dont use our abilities always. But a God? Hell no!

A God before creation cannot ignore using his ability to peep into the future of his creations. A God would already know, he doesn't need to look, he would know inherently that this would happen and that would happen even without looking. It's very ridiculous how you people betray intelligence to defend this God.

If God will need to look if his creations will err in the future as against just knowing, then why call him God? Why not just call him human because that's what a human will do.
If Adam and Eve were perfect, they would have obeyed and not disobeyed. Adam and Eve didn't even know what was right or wrong. They would need to eat the fruit before knowing that. Perfect Adam and Eve, would have just sticked to instructions. Disobeying the instructions given to them was a sign of imperfection. So God not using his ability according to your claims was a mistake on his part, because it changed his plans. That's why this thread was created.

JMAN05:
Just to clear things. I am not in the opposing or proposing side on whatever you guys have been discussing. I just replied to the op. My comment should be viewed as distinct from from all others.

Noted!

JMAN05:
Omniscience is either Total or Inherent. In other words, we can say that God is inherently omniscient. He has the ABILITY to foreknow. The scriptures will keep against it if we say that God is Totally omniscient.

Omniscient is very Total. Very very total. If God is inherently omniscient, then he doesn't even need to look to know. The scriptures are lies. Don't bank on them.

JMAN05:
What am saying is that God has the ABILITY to know tomorrow. If he says He knows tomorrow, then it means He has used His ability to foreknow that tomorrow, not that by default, He knows tomorrow.

Predestination is lies against God. You cannot predestine someone and still hold him responsible for his actions. Yes, when I learned that truth, it was new, but I came to see that it is consistent with overall analyses of what we read in the scriptures about God.

Well, that is a limitation that God does not know tomorrow by default. Then he does not have total knowledge of tomorrow.

If God has to decide to use his ability, or as a result of not using his ability he does not know some things, then why call him God? According to you, if God has not used his ability for a particular purpose, then he can be naive on the thing. For example, if God has not looked into my tomorrow, then he does not know my tomorrow. Then why is he called God? Because of his ability? Lmao.

I also have the ability to know economics but I dont know it because I have not read it. Am I also God?

sino:
I was very specific about the aspects of the Prof. and student analogy, but since it would expose your line of questioning as being redundant, you then go on a tangent bringing up irrelevant information.

You wrote above that my analogy with regards to the brain and computer depends on what I am defending and the application, I'll say, my analogy depends on what I am explaining and the specifics of the aspects I am using! It is not important that what I am using as an analogy is quite different in terms of characteristics and even more from what I want to explain, but rather what is important is that there can be a resemblance between them...

The matter at hand is investigating the omnipotent and omniscient nature of God. Bringing in analogy of a prof who is neither omnipotent nor omniscient begs the question, what are you doing dude? How would you even bring in such analogy when the prof cannot be be all knowing nor all powerful? You went off point.

The specifics of the aspect you were explaining was not addressing the functions of an omnipotent and omniscient God.

sino:
The Prof saw you writing nonsense is what I am talking about, and definitely knows that you will fail! It is your choice to write nonsense, and you failing is the consequences of your own action!

Even if the prof bumped on me writing nonsense, he would be shocked and feel sorry for me. He does not have the power to stop me from writing nonsense. An omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would be able to do that. That's where your analogy fails to apply.

A God also would have created me and given me the power to make the choices. He knew I was going to make the choices at some point. It had all been written down. But a prof didn't know I was going to make the choices to fail, he only bumped on me writing nonsense. Please throw away this analogy. Let's face the issue squarely.

sino:
God knowing that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit doesn't precludes the fact that it was a decision and an act they did on their own after being advised to contrary. It doesn't take away anything from God, cos he gave them the ability to make choices in the first place! They could have easily avoided the fruit, but they didn't, and no where is it written that God made them eat the fruit! By the way, they accepted responsibility for their actions/disobedience and made amendments. But you are looking for who to blame, and I just hope this is not your reality in the real world!

God knowing that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit at a particular time spells everything out. It means he knew how everything would turn out, so why blame Adam and Eve for it? Now learn how to apply analogy.

Let's say you (God) created an automobile (man) that drives itself (freewill) and you know it will break down because you put something in it that will cause the breakdown if it passes a bump (eat a particular fruit). However, you went ahead to build the bump(the fruit) and placed it close to the automobile. The automobile breaks down as you had pre-known it would, will you curse and blame the automobile? Despite that you have the power to not put what caused the breakdown initially or not create the bump that would break it, but you opted against that. Will you blame the automobile for breaking down?

If legend is true, then God is to blame, becaue he had the power to make this world what he wants it to be like but he opted for this chaos. As an omniscient being he saw everything even before he started. This couldn't have been the only option, or is it?

sino:
I have already made my point clear about the limitations of the possible outcomes of an event as well as an action humans can make at any given time! Having these knowledge doesn't mean that you don't have a choice, but it seems to you guys that is impossible, but the reality is that it is very possible! No one is forcing you to do anything you don't want to do na!

You as a typical Muslim would know about destiny. It's like the second or third big thing taught in Islam. That the rich has been destined to be rich and the poor has been destined to be poor. Is it true or not?
These choices you talk about, can they change these destinies? If I'm to take you seriously then you have to spell it out that God doesn't get it right always on destinies because our actions and choices determines our fate. Where there is fate and destiny, that had been written by God, there is no freewill. Where there is freewill given by God, there's no destiny and fate. Think about it with an open mind.

sino:
This is flawed reasoning, it focuses on the negatives and amplify it as if that is the whole story, but there is more to these occurences than just the death and the chaos! Until you have a say on how the world functions, I believe this issue is way beyond your pay grade!

A God that knew about the deaths before they happened and could stop them from happening and yet did nothing is malevolent. I have a say on how the world functions and I am gladly telling you that it functions without the input of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God. That being does not exist!

sino:
But God didn't create you to destroy you, he created you to worship him. But God knows that due to the freedom given to you to make your own decisions, you can deny him, and choose a wrong path, still, God sent guidance, but you have rejected them all, you are proud of your choices, you even make mockery of God, in all honesty, if you continue like this till your death, do you think you deserve a reward for your own actions from this God?

Yeah, God created the whole universe just to be worshipped. So much ego there.

If God, the all powerful created me to worship him, then I wouldn't be doing otherwise. That's another flaw lol.
God, however, knew I was not going to worship him before he created me, didn't he? He knew that despite the guidance he provided. The bulk of us will not take it. Then he went ahead to create hell fire for the ones who will not follow the guidance, the ones he already knew before they were born. I am categorically telling you bro, the aim of your God is to destroy, he derives joy in it.

Oh sorry, there's no God to even begin with.

aadoiza:
It doesn't work like that. You have got to take the path to salvation he's offered you then leave everything else to him.

Then he does not know my end. You don't get it? If I get saved then my end is not destruction.

If my end is destruction, then no matter what is offered, the destruction will still take place. That's how it works.

aadoiza:
If God knows your end is destruction and gIves you a path to salvation, how is God at fault here?

You still dont understand it.

If God offers me a path to salvation, then he does not know my end.

A God who knows my end and offers me salvation would be deceiving itself.

sino:
I see the problem here, if I make an analogy of the brain with a computer processor, according to you, it must be illogical, cos the brain is not limited by availability of electricity, while the processor is! Please learn the application of analogy and stop all these your gaffes! It is grotesque!

Yes, it will be illogical if the argument tends toward the availability electricity of as a source of energy for the processor and no other source. An analogy must have an analogue in all respect. That's why it's an analogy ffs.

But then the brain has it's own source of energy and so does the computer processor. So it depends on what you're defending and the application.

It is obvious that the professor is not a creator of the student or what he knows, neither does he have power to change anything or know everything about the student. It betrays the focus of this particular argument and it doesn't apply.

I believe that advice is for you. Please learn how to apply analogy.

sino:
The prof even though not all knowing, or all powerful, knows that you writing nonsense is failure, and while seeing the nonsense, actually has the power (as the course convener and examiner) to stop you and even give you the right answers, I guess that is what you want?!

The prof only knows that IF I write nonsense I will fail, and if I dont write nonsense I will pass. He doesn't know whether I will definitely write nonsense or not before the exam. That's what we are talking about here. God either knew definitely that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree anyway, or he didnt know they would eat. Any one it is, it always faults the concept of A God.

If he knew they were going to eat it no matter what, that would make him omniscient, "all knowing" and wicked, because he knew what would happen will cause problems but he allowed it. And hence there's no freewill, because they only acted according to his plans.

But if he didnt know they were going to decide to eat from the tree, then he is not omniscient, because he didn't know they would decide to eat from the tree.

sino:
Must all powerful God mean that God must do whatever you want whenever you want it?! What sort of skewed logic is that?! Are you supposed to dictate to God on how God should be and carry out divine activities?!

No it doesn't, the only problem is when you people define God, you don't leave it with any blemish. Give me a break please. An omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God would not even let ebola outbreak kill hundreds in Congo, he would not let famine kill children in Yemen.

That's why the simple philosophy of epicurus is valid until today.
Is God willing to stop evil but not able, Why call him omnipotent?
Is he able but not willing, Why is he omnibenevolent?
Is he both able and willing, Then why is there evil?
Is he neither able or willing, Then why call him God?
If a God exists, then we wouldn't be here discussing this.

sino:
God, the all knowing, knows your end, and this end is based on your own choices! God gave you the opportunity to choose your own end! Except you want to tell me you aren't conscious of your own choices and decisions, then you may have a point.

If God the all knowing knows my end is destruction, but still went ahead to create me, then he is malevolent and he derives joy in seeing me being destroyed making him not all loving. And he can't do anything about it which makes him powerless, so he is not all powerful in the end. Thanks!

tintingz:
Me sef no know ooo.

# Destiny - the events that will necessarily happen to a particular person or thing in the future.

the hidden power believed to control future events; fate.


# Freewill - the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

My brother how this two definition work together still baffles me.

It doesn't and can't work together. Those people are not just honest with themselves. They have put their intelligence in question sef. That was why I saluted you, because despite showing them or proving it to them, since they are not honest, they wont want to bow to your positions.

A God that is omniscient and omnipotent must be a wicked God. A God who is not wicked wont be omnipotent and omniscient. Because he would be in Yemen now, helping or preventing further famine, he would have prevented the ebola outbreak in Congo last year, many things wouldnt have happened at all.

But then, we are just atheists, we are lost

tintingz:
A perfect professor = He doesn't need to check your exam sheet, he doesn't need to be curious, infact he doesn't need to interact with you. He has already know your grade long before exam time table and has graded you. That is an all knowing professor.

An imperfect professor = He wait till exam period, He is curious, he go through your exams sheets, study it, think and grade you. This is not an all knowing professor.

For the fact that exams are organized before grading students means both the lecturers and students are not perfect!

Using this analogy of professor and student is ridiculous.

Very very ridiculous, I don't really know why they are very dishonest about this.

sino:
The Prof knows beforehand that students who write exams would either pass or fail! But here he sees a student in the examination hall writing nonsense! At that point in time, the Prof has a beforehand knowledge that the student will fail! So does this fault the concept of a Prof in the University system?!

You my friend have the capacity to reason properly and also reason stupidly (except you do have a congenial stupidity disorder ), should it be the fault of God(or whatever brought you to existence) if you start reasoning stupidly?!

Let me help you before you misconstrue my post, you know not listening in class and not reading your lecture notes is indeed stupid, but you chose to do so and started writing nonsense in the exam, instead of taking responsibility for your failure, you started ranting about your hatred for the Prof! So who is to be blamed for your failure?!

Adam and Eve disobeyed God, fortunately for them, they knew they were in the wrong for disobeying God, and sought forgiveness and God forgave them. Out of the mercy and love of God is the fact that you being imperfect, can misbehave, but you can also make amends and seek forgiveness, you are given this opportunity everyday till your last breath...But it is all illogical to you (even though it is what reasonable people do when they fail, they acknowledge their faults and make amends), you dig your heels in and stand by your atheistic convictions...And it is okay, after all, it is your choice and decision, not mine!

Lol. You still dont get it, do you?

The argument is to ascertain the omniscient "all knowing" nature of your imaginary friend, God.

Your analogy of the professor does not apply, except if God is as limited as the professor.

A professor knows that students will may pass or fail an exam, but he does not know which one. While a God would already know which one would fail an exam even before the student was born.

A professor is not all knowing, a God is all knowing.

Even if a professor now sees a student writing nonsense, he still does not have the power to stop the student from writing nonsense, because he is not omnipotent, "all powerful." A God can stop a student or anyone from failing in life because he is omnipotent.

On that premise alone, your analogy is illogical and faulty. Its very simple Mr sino. Just be honest with yourself. The argument is based on the omnipotence and omniscient nature of God, of which only the concept of God can attain that level. Nobody else can, not even a professor. No analogy can save you from this, just argue the matter and dont bring strawman arguments, be honest.

tintingz:
Again God is not the only supernatural that's known in history. How many times will I say this?

Atheism/atheists position is lack of belief in God/s and this is religion section, are we suppose to be talking about romance?

I'm not obsessed with theism lol, I've other important things doing, I only come here to have fun and make una reason.

How do you intend to convince illogical theists? There is no way.

They will go out of their intelligence most times to defend their imaginary almighty friend. Can't you see how ridiculous they have become trying to make sense out of nonsense? People that faults science and believe a medieval book? Stop wasting your time dear friend.

The funniest one is sino, who is fond of bringing illogical analogies into arguments .
Can you imagine? Does the professor know beforehand that the student will fail? Lol. Isn't the professor curious about who's going to pass or who's going to fail?

This thing is very straightforward, did God know that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit before creating them or was he eager to know what they would do? Whatever the answer to that question is will always fault the concept of a God.

I salute your doggedness though. But this is an advice, these ones here are mediocrities when it comes to reasoning. Their logical faculties were tampered with deeply from childhood. Except, and only except they sit down and take themselves to it, they will not bow to your positions, because they are filled with theistic ego.

JMAN05:
1. Gods purpose is that we fill the earth as perfect humans and become caretakers as it were. Gen 1:27-28. His original purpose is for humans to stay here FOREVER. Psalm 37:9, 29.

2. Just like some may have said, there is a difference between having the ABILITY to foresee the future, and predestining individual creatures on earth. Had God pre-knew what Adam and Eve would do before creating them, then He would be responsible for what there action brought to the human family. It is only a wicked person who would see that his product is sure to fail, and he goes on bringing the product to life. Especially, if that person has the capacity of bringing about a product that can't fail.

Those who have said there's a difference between ability to see the future and pre-destining the future are fools who don't think at all before they post. There is not one single difference.

Had God pre-knew? Are you implying that God didn't pre-know what Adam and Eve would do before he created them? If yes, then that's one of our positions too if the legend of Adam and Eve is true. It's either this God didn't know or he knew and allowed it. Both positions still faults the concept of a God.

JMAN05:
God was creating free moral agents, He has no need to start foreseeing there future choice. Why will He do such a thing? Why create free moral agents if you are afraid of what there choice will be? Why not rather create those there actions has been written to obey you? So God made Adam and Eve as free moral agents without preknowing what there future choice would be.

He made them, gave them a choice to prove whether they would obey Him as there ruler, and they made there choice to be rather independent of God. That's their choice. Gods words at Gen 6:5,6, shows he would not have knowingly set a world of doom. And still regret. The problem we see would have been His will.

Exactly, God didn't need to foresee what actions his free moral agents would take, their future choice and the actions they would partake in. So he didn't foresee what Adam and Eve would do, hence he didn't know their future, hence he is not omniscient. Isn't it clear to you what we are saying here?

I don't need to continue on the other things you said, I have proved my points.

JMAN05:
3. Belief in predestination is accusing God of cruelty. It is another way of saying that all badness we have ever witnessed was put in motion by God.

Are you saying God doesn't know our destinies? We have heard that no one knows tomorrow except God. Are you saying that's false now? Are you saying that even God does not know tomorrow? Lol, this is new.
Then, why call him God?

Disclaimer : my arguments are hypothetical positions, assuming God exists.

XxSabrinaxX:
E pain am die
It really sad and painful. Ordinary people live and learn. Muttley, you just live. Seriously, your god wasted a good asshole when he put a teeth in your mouth

Stop wasting your time with that dude. He is not thinking well.

PrecisionFx:
So people see dead people, speak with them and people also see the future

Besides, how can a dead man without a brain speak? Don't you know that the neurons that controls speech are in the brain?

The level of ignorance in Nigeria is great!

PrecisionFx:
So people see dead people, speak with them and people also see the future

In this century you still believe people see the dead?

Seeing the future is an idiom that means people can PREDICT the future. It's not like they will see the future with their eyes. Lol

OpenYourEyes1:
“Look! The time is coming when the signs appear that I told you about in advance, and the city will appear, appearing as a bride, and the land that is now hidden will be openly displayed.
Everyone who is rescued from the evils foretold will see my wonders.
My Son the anointed one will be revealed along with those who are with him, and those who remain will rejoice for four hundred years." - 2Esdras 7:21—26

You're outrightly stupid.

There! I said it!

TheArranger:
Just to clarify, I am not debating free will in general, as that is a completely different topic.

God's plan, put simply, is that we would be tested on Earth, and those of us who were good would go to heaven. I have always been told that this includes us having free will. However, God is said to be omnipotent. If God can see the future, than it is predetermined, and therefore, we can't have free will. If we don't have free will, God is knowingly sending people towards damnation, is he not?

In my opinion God's omnipotence contradicts the requirement for free will in God's plan.

Cc. Ranchhoddas, budaatum, OtemAtum, LordReed, jesusjnr, Michellekabod1, luvmijeje, finalboss, TATIME, MuttleyLaff, JMAN05, HellVictorinho, HardMirror, Akin1212, XxSabrinaxX, vaxx, ihedinobi3, Dantedasz, Rebekkah

The concept of freewill is an illusion. Although in English dictionaries, freewill is defined as making a choice without being forced, compelled, coerced or without being influenced. But there are two major problems with that definition when it comes to logic and religion. One is implicit, the other is explicit.

The explicit problem here is influence. When God is concerned, whatever decision you make is being influenced either by a reward or a punishment. Hence, you don't have freewill.

The implicit problem here is the claimed omnipotence and omniscience nature of God. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he knows everything and can do everything. Two questions then arise, does God want this world to be like this? If he doesn't, then why is everything like this?

I will like to use the legend or myth of Adam and Eve as an example. As usual, God had a different plan, then Adam, Eve and the Serpent changed his plans. Isn't it?

The question is, did God know they were going to change his plans before he created them? If he knew, then he had written it down that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree through the serpent even before he created them. And that would mean that there's no freewill, because everything they did was according to God's plan. And that would sum it up that although God can do everything and knows everything but there's no freewill. And God is not Omnibenevolent - that is, all loving because it's part of his plans to send people to hell or make them suffer.

But if he didn't know they were going to eat from the tree, but however placed the tree close to them. Then he didn't know the decision they were going to make and was eager to know by testing them. This ridicules the omniscient and omnipotent nature of God.

The events in this universe and this world at large are a result of cosmic energy and is devoid of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God. The events are so randomized and the projection of logic is to conclude that it's either there is no freewill or there's no perfect God. And that's if we are assuming there's a God at all.

aadoiza:
LOL that 0 by 2 really confuses you. Atheists will never get it unless spelled out. You're no way qualified to clear my confusions on anything. Unlike you, I don't guzzle up mumbo jumbo in the name of science. It's the main problem you people have. Science is cool, by the way.

Evolution is horseshit in the guise of science.

I tire for this guy. I don't know how transitioning is synonymous with giving birth.
A God that cannot kill itself? So much for atheistic logic

Well, believe whatever you wanna believe and lemme do so whatever I wanna. It's a free world, after all.

If evolution is not demonstrable, and you cannot demonstrate in nature where explosions create rather than destroy and where nothing gives birth to something then you remain a believer.

I hope you'd realise in the future how you had shown strong faith in delusions upon delusions in the name of science and you'd feel sorry for yourself. I've met a number of such people.

Isn't your foolery obvious here? You just made a silly statement of multiplying two cars by 0. That on its own is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Lol, and you even think I am confused by that? Lmao, I just asked what your 0 is represented with to show you how illogical you are. Cars are material, whatever represents 0 in your silly example must also be material. This is not about belief, it's about using your brain which you have failed to use.
You don't guzzle up mumbo jumbo says someone who guzzled up the creation myth...

I'll rather guzzle up a theory that has been tested than guzzle up another man's story and delusions. Lmao.

The main problem we have is that we don't guzzle up delusions, unlike you. You cannot even give any plausible hypothetical explanation for what you believe than God did it, lol okay prove the God.

Evolution is horseshit says an indoctrinated fellow who doesn't even know what a gene is. Seriously speaking, I would be shocked if ignorants like you understand evolution the first time they hear it or even the 100th time. It's too complex for your mind to breakdown. So far it has been revealed how simple your mind is.

Like I said, your mind is simple. A way of evolving is not one animal changing or transitioning into another. There is no way evolution will take place if one generation is not passing information to their offspring which involves giving birth. I thought you actually understood evolution before making that statement, but now that it has been established that you cannot grasp the theory of evolution. Pardon me for thinking you can.
If evolution will take place, sexual reproduction or giving birth must be involved. Because that is the only way to pass the changes in DNA to the coming generation. I hope you have learnt something today.

Yeah, let's just put science aside. Logic is good because it supports everything that is real. If your God exists and it can do everything, can it kill itself? This is a very simple logic that shows that God can never exist.

Evolution is very demonstrable and it has been demonstrated many times. Evolution does not teaches that explosions create, and there's no science of explosion creating anything. I know you're talking about the big bang, another theory your brain cannot grasp. But I won't address that today. Why are you looking for something giving birth to another,I thought you said it's not related to evolution. Are you confused?

I don't believe in evolution, there's no belief system in science. We only make hypothesis and carry out experiments, then we draw a conclusion from the results of the experiments. So simple as 123.

I just cleared your confusions. And I am more than qualified to clear an ignorant fellow like you. A person who believes without evidence. LMao

But in religion, do you even need experiments?

tossie101:
But if it was u yoeubas that comment would have 100s of likes.
U are saying ur own sha
I strongly support her.

You support her for hating on someone just because she is Yoruba? That's really funny. And I wouldn't have liked that post nor support her if she was Yoruba.

Negative energy stay away from me. I hate negative energy.

Odogu9195:
all this for just devices? i bet the money they will get from the sell of those devices would end up been spent on oloshi and for beer parlor, and you will hear someone screaming say no to jungle justices to all criminals. How in the hell did this criminals become the victim is what i dont understand. Rest on MAMA, I hope you Find peace. Jungle justice to any caught criminal.

The problem with jungle justice are those delivering the justice. Most times they end up killing the innocents. These kind of criminals that killed her mum should be killed instantly when caught

Onyi22 was actually expecting her fellow igbos to support her. Now that they have declined and saw her for a foolish person that she is, she must be really heartbroken.

tintingz:
Where did he claim to be Christian?

Leave the mumu. That's how simple people think.

Demmzy15:
Who's this Yoruba Christian spamming my mention?

Go through the thread see how you fumbled, you just plainly looked like a fool.

Yoruba? Yes. Christian? No.
Did you buy this mention from Nairaland? I suggest you sue me. Lol

I know, I know. I know what you read will look like I fumbled to primitive minds like yours, that was why I had to leave the ignorant person I was arguing with. He was just like you and not ready to learn. I can't be wasting my time. But seeing that this quoted message is all you can come up with, laying claim to mentions, have wonderful ignorant life.

aadoiza:
This is getting predictably tiresome.
Nothingness is nothingness. The energy part isimerely an attempt to make it plausible because a lie, and in this case a very big lie, has to make sense to be acceptable. That's why there's so much embellishments in those theories. Truth, on the other hand, does not need embellishing whether it makes sense or not.
I'm aware of all these "you can see an animal in transition 'cos of our relatively short life span" nonsense. It's all more mumbo jumbo pseudo science.

A lot of you are mistaking pseudo science for science. Science, even with all its appeal, is no substitute for God. Of course Almighty God is nonsense to independent thinkers like our dear atheists but it bemuses me how you can some the horseshit in science. You say 2x0=0; and if you multiply 2cars by 0, do you also get nothingness? I don't even want to go into gravitation or the constituents of the sun, etc. Atheists always asking silly questions is sheer mundaneness.

The energy part is not an attempt to make anything plausible, you cannot explain nothingness without energy. A lie cannot have evidence. A lie will fail when investigated. Have you ever done any investigation concerning the concept of nothingness and what it really means? It appears your are giving it your own meaning. Do you even know that there are particles that are massless? I doubt. Those theories are being embellished by theists like you who have a swell time understanding the basic concepts. Sorry.
Lol, in your mind theism is the truth and does not need embellishment, right? No wonder there are about 1.4 billion atheists embellishing theism today vigorously and yet there's no evidence for any God as we speak.

You actually expect a specie to give birth to another specie? Lol that in its own defines ignorance. Do you even know genetics? I doubt.


How dare you talk about pseudo science when you reek of it? You think science is whatever proves God? Whatever is science must pass through scientific methods, and I act within that premise. You however, and the likes of you just assume science in line with your unprovable imaginary God. That's hilarious though.

We don't even need to bring in science to disprove this your imaginary friend. Logic alone trashes that concept. A God that can do everything cannot exist because it cannot kill itself. Let's leave science out of it, only logic is needed to clear your medieval mind of God. Science is not horseshit, it is the reason we are communicating on Nairaland now. Checkmate!

Can you imagine your example of 2 x 0 being zero? Chai.

Why are you so primitive and ignorant? If you multiply 2 cars by 0, what are you using to represent 0? Or are you using cars to represent cars and zero with 0 in your head?

Bring your confusions on gravitation, let's trash it for you.

Please do think before you type. Pleaseeee.

Demmzy15:
Then you weren't a proper guided Muslim then. Anyone who bases his faith on such would have problems and your life is evident from this.

You mean he wasn't a properly indoctrinated Muslim. I agree and I am happy for him too.

aadoiza:
It's not about the Nazis' struggles but what the Americans did with their scientists after the war. The Nazi scientists were captured and after the war were funded to continue the mind control experiments ,that was started in Nazi Germany, in the US.

When I looked at the so-called evidences they are but a bunch of drivels not worthy of a second look. If I don't get to see at least one animal in a transitory period evolving to a relatively higher animal and also things forming from nothingness then I'm sticking with creation.
I don't expect the supposedly well-enlightened atheists to accept homosexuality and would like to know how it conforms with our biological make-up. One doesn't need to be religious to find such an act distateful. If it's an incorrigible inclination, and purging the earth of those who brazenly indulge in such unimaginable filth is what religion enjoin then I stand by it.
I'm sure the manuscripts must have been taken out of contest. If some people are coming to kill me and God orders me to protect my life and properties, and kill them if I can before they succeed in their plot I don't see what's amiss there.
There is no wisdom in that quote. It's contrived and mischievous.

Ignorance they say is bliss. Maybe you should try and understand what nothingness means from the scientific point of view first. It means no matter, but there's energy. There are massless particles my friend.

You cannot see the transition of one animal into another because it's not distinct, it takes time considering the conditions necessary for that to happen, you cannot live beyond 150 years. Besides, new species of animals are being discovered. Your myth of creation cannot account for them as their genes have precursors. I'll upload a picture that describes the collage example.

The evidence are pure, I'll also upload a couple...


Atheism is humanism in a way, if adults want to sleep or mate with people of same gender and it's not in anyway affecting me, they can go ahead. We all know that you theists will prefer to kill them only in the interest of your imaginary God. If not, how does what two adults decide to do in their bedroom become distasteful to you?

What's your business in their business

tintingz:
It is amazing how religious people don't see the ridiculousness in their mythology, God works in mysterious ways is their answer to me it's like saying God do meaningless things.

You hate something and have all the power to stop it and again said you will punish people for what you're responsible of, something you already know and can easily be stopped .

And funniest thing is God get angry at what he already knows will happen.

It's such a big shame that the majority of them just don't exercise critical reasoning and logic when it comes to this God of theirs. They prefer to be foolish and believe the fairy tales than think. A good thinker well not even believe that bullshit.

IMAliyu:
We meet again.
I'm not a scholar, but here is my two cents on this.
Yes Lut (pbh) was sent by God to warn them.
In the Islamic religion we have the belief that God created man with free will (To have the choice to follow God's will or not, to do good or bad... etc), So yes, he knows all, but what would be the point of giving man free will if he would stop them from doing things?
Yes, even the children died (all life belongs to him, He takes it and gives it at will)
As I once heard some cleric say, "when God unleashes his wrath, it takes both the good and bad doers together and the two are separated in the afterlife". Children are considered to be devoid of sin.
I hope you find my answer helpful.

The question is not the bolded, you're asking an after question when you should be asking a before question. God according to legend is the beginning of everything. So let's go back to the beginning.

Before today, in the beginning God already knew we will argue this matter here on Nairaland, hypothetically. The same way God already knew Adam and Eve would eat the fruit irrespective of the instructions and freewill he gave them, right?
But God still went ahead and created Adam and Eve and us concurrently. He already knew the freewill of Adam and Eve will yield this result, didn't he?

So the question is this, what happened to Adam and Eve and what is happening here was known to God or Allah that it would happen, as an almighty God that he is, he had the power to stop these things. But because he allowed these things and refused to stop them, can we say he didn't want them to happen?

najib632:
No sir, I haven't.

No I am not a scientist, The Qur'an is not a book of science it is a book of signs, yes I made a mistake but it's not far from what you said.

It's very far from what I said. You placed theory before experiment. That's a very big error.

najib632:
Yes I understand, thanks.

You're welcome.

najib632:
Ok thanks for the explanation, you just reminded me of something why is the theory of perpetual motion not accepted even though it is a well constructed theory, because it violates the second law of thermodynamics right? So how will one be able to relate the two from your explanation Sir?

There is nothing like the theory of perpetual motion. However, there is a term called perpetual motion which means indefinite motion. But a machine that will move indefinitely without an energy source is impossible.

The idea is a hypothesis that has not been demonstrated to work through experiment. Energy is the force used to do work, without it nothing can be done.

najib632:
Newton's laws are not as criticised as Einstein's theory of relativity, that's a fact sir. Because quantum physics is contradicting many of Einsteins theories.

Quantum physics is promoting Einstein's work instead. Don't be mistaken.

najib632:
Yeah I might be a mediocre, I don't really care though, maybe you're trying to make me angry I guess, but I am not arguing with you for my own sake I am arguing with you for sake of Allah so I cannot be angry with you. Just to let you know though you haven't said anything to me with substance apart from attacking the two mistakes I have made, and I will always believe in Allah till I die because I don't see any reason not to. It appears you're a rich person, it's not hard for a rich person to be deluded by the devil though, so I am not surprised,

Because you think this garbage, doesn't mean it's true. I haven't seen the devil before nor hear from him,have you?

najib632:
Atheist disprove this verse for me:

أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا ۖ وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَاءِ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ حَيٍّ ۖ أَفَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ

(Sahih International)
Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?

-Sura Al-Anbiya'21, Ayah 30

There is nothing here, except if you're saying we were not created by Allah. Because I know you're trying to justify the Qur'an by posting this trash. If Quran says every living thing came from water then why does it also say man was created from clay, earth and mud? Or man is not a living thing?

It seems the Qur'an is also confused just as you are.

najib632:
Prove they're lies and fallacies sir, I am here to argue so prove me wrong.

Ottomans invented university sir, go and do more research... Sorry for not being specific though I am not talking of a physician or medical practitioner, I meant Doctor as in education. I might be wrong about the origin but the word Doctor is also present in Arabic... if you know the origin you can tell me.

You have proven it yourself here. I don't need to stress myself at all.

najib632:
No sir I still remember the rules, observation, hypothesis, theory, and experimentation, if the result of experimentation tallies with theory you have a law.

This is very laughable, let me ask you a simple question, are you even a scientist? You obviously didn't get the order of the scientific method correctly. It seems you need lots of explanations done for you on science. Now read the below explanation carefully, I'll make it very simple.

The steps of the scientific metgods are - observation, hypothesis, experiment, theory(data /analysis), conclusion or law. Check it anywhere, online,your textbook, just anywhere except your quran.

After making an observation of a phenomena, you will have to make a hypothesis of what could be happening. After the hypothesis is made, you will have to test your hypothesis to confirm if it is right or wrong.

The only way to test hypothesis is to conduct an experiment. After the experiment, if the hypothesis is wrong based on the experiment, that is the end because you cannot go further, the hypothesis is wrong already.

But if the hypothesis is right or correct based on the experiment, that means what you hypothesized is correct. Once you're correct, you attempt to EXPLAIN the correct thing you just discovered, your explanation is the THEORY(data/analysis).

Now, when you have already formed the THEORY(data/analysis), you have to put in a concise statement to describe or state it. Then you can summarize the THEORY into a LAW(conclusion ).

Are we clear now? Whew!

najib632:
No sir, A scientific Law is a proved theory as simple as that. A Law has no deficiencies while a theory has, take for example Newton's laws of Motion has no deficiency but Albert Einsteins theory of relativity is still a theory because it has some defects even though it's still applicable in some aspects but not in others.

I have taken my time to explain to you the scientific method up there. You seem to attend a public school where your science teacher didn't properly explain the scientific method to you. Read it more than once please.

You cannot prove a theory, because a theory is formed after an experiment. You cannot go to Lagos state when you're already in Lagos state.
Einstein's theory of relativity is a tested and correct hypothesis, because they call it theory doesn't mean it is not correct. It has no defects. In reality it is Newton's law that has defects. Newton was correct too but he didn't cover much grounds like Enstein's theory. You need to educate yourself. You appear as a mediocre, no wonder you believe in an imaginary God

I have so many pictorial evidence but I can only upload 4

ovoSoft:
op don't mind all these people above, someone here will definitely do the job and will give you a 50k work......

Nobody will do that work for 50k. 100k sef is after much consideration.



Edited: I failed to see the satire initially, I saw it later