₦airaland Forum

All those wey dey lambast Mikel...REST. He was poor today but how many other times has he not held up the team. He is one of our chief playmakers...no one can always have a good day. The boys did well...outplayed by Italy but this is a friendly and a test and I was impressed. VERY VERY GOOD GAME.

The idiots calling Ojukwu a coward for fleeing to the CIV are unwise. What good would he have been to his people dead as he no doubt would have been murdered? He who fights and runs away will live to fight another day and Ojukwu lived to fight for many more years and remain an inspiration to the Igbo people. There is a difference between bravery and bravado.

I have only just returned from Nigeria; while I was there, I became acquainted with some of the issues that are being debated at the heights of government. One of these issues was the push by Cameron and the US for Nigeria to legalise or support Gay unions. Anyway, this has not been received well by many, if not a majority of the Nigerian people and I had a quite interesting discussion about this with my brother in law. Somewhere in our conversation, he veered into the God/Bible issue which is quite difficult to argue against without bringing in Evolution, so I did. The interesting thing is that - and I have mentioned this in a previous article - evolution is still not properly taught in our schools, if at all. www.thenigeriangod..co.uk

I have only just returned from Nigeria; while I was there, I became acquainted with some of the issues that are being debated at the heights of government. One of these issues was the push by Cameron and the US for Nigeria to legalise or support Gay unions. Anyway, this has not been received well by many, if not a majority of the Nigerian people and I had a quite interesting discussion about this with my brother in law. Somewhere in our conversation, he veered into the God/Bible issue which is quite difficult to argue against without bringing in Evolution, so I did. The interesting thing is that - and I have mentioned this in a previous article - evolution is still not properly taught in our schools, if at all. www.thenigeriangod..co.uk

I have only just returned from Nigeria; while I was there, I became acquainted with some of the issues that are being debated at the heights of government. One of these issues was the push by Cameron and the US for Nigeria to legalise or support Gay unions. Anyway, this has not been received well by many, if not a majority of the Nigerian people and I had a quite interesting discussion about this with my brother in law. Somewhere in our conversation, he veered into the God/Bible issue which is quite difficult to argue against without bringing in Evolution, so I did. The interesting thing is that - and I have mentioned this in a previous article - evolution is still not properly taught in our schools, if at all. www.thenigeriangod..co.uk

I have only just returned from Nigeria; while I was there, I became acquainted with some of the issues that are being debated at the heights of government. One of these issues was the push by Cameron and the US for Nigeria to legalise or support Gay unions. Anyway, this has not been received well by many, if not a majority of the Nigerian people and I had a quite interesting discussion about this with my brother in law. Somewhere in our conversation, he veered into the God/Bible issue which is quite difficult to argue against without bringing in Evolution, so I did. The interesting thing is that - and I have mentioned this in a previous article - evolution is still not properly taught in our schools, if at all. www.thenigeriangod..co.uk

I have only just returned from Nigeria; while I was there, I became acquainted with some of the issues that are being debated at the heights of government. One of these issues was the push by Cameron and the US for Nigeria to legalise or support Gay unions. Anyway, this has not been received well by many, if not a majority of the Nigerian people and I had a quite interesting discussion about this with my brother in law. Somewhere in our conversation, he veered into the God/Bible issue which is quite difficult to argue against without bringing in Evolution, so I did. The interesting thing is that - and I have mentioned this in a previous article - evolution is still not properly taught in our schools, if at all. www.thenigeriangod..co.uk

I have only just returned from Nigeria; while I was there, I became acquainted with some of the issues that are being debated at the heights of government. One of these issues was the push by Cameron and the US for Nigeria to legalise or support Gay unions. Anyway, this has not been received well by many, if not a majority of the Nigerian people and I had a quite interesting discussion about this with my brother in law. Somewhere in our conversation, he veered into the God/Bible issue which is quite difficult to argue against without bringing in Evolution, so I did. The interesting thing is that - and I have mentioned this in a previous article - evolution is still not properly taught in our schools, if at all. www.thenigeriangod..co.uk

I have only just returned from Nigeria; while I was there, I became acquainted with some of the issues that are being debated at the heights of government. One of these issues was the push by Cameron and the US for Nigeria to legalise or support Gay unions. Anyway, this has not been received well by many, if not a majority of the Nigerian people and I had a quite interesting discussion about this with my brother in law. Somewhere in our conversation, he veered into the God/Bible issue which is quite difficult to argue against without bringing in Evolution, so I did. The interesting thing is that - and I have mentioned this in a previous article - evolution is still not properly taught in our schools, if at all. www.thenigeriangod..co.uk

I have only just returned from Nigeria; while I was there, I became acquainted with some of the issues that are being debated at the heights of government. One of these issues was the push by Cameron and the US for Nigeria to legalise or support Gay unions. Anyway, this has not been received well by many, if not a majority of the Nigerian people and I had a quite interesting discussion about this with my brother in law. Somewhere in our conversation, he veered into the God/Bible issue which is quite difficult to argue against without bringing in Evolution, so I did. The interesting thing is that - and I have mentioned this in a previous article - evolution is still not properly taught in our schools, if at all. It is quite like there is a concerted and collective effort to keep the nation ignorant of what is a demonstrated scientific fact - like gravity. I should know because I studied Biology in Nigeria and evolution was glossed over almost like a third hand account of what some people said. It wasn't focused on and taught like I learned of gravity and the laws of motion, like the causes of disease and the circulatory system. But maybe, this isn't for all schools; maybe, there are some schools where people are taught properly. www.thenigeriangod..com

Yes, bloody Uche out.

Can someone tell me if Uche is really in this match?

physicsQED: First, I'm getting tired of repeating myself, so just read my comments on this thread from page 1 to page 2: https://www.nairaland.com/775552/speed-light-time-einstein-extra-universal/1


It would be a waste of time to retype all that I typed trying to explain what I was trying to explain to Deep Sight.


Second, I'm starting to suspect that you don't know what zero-point energy really is.

Man, I made sense and, it is not logical to say there was 'nothing like before the big bang' because that, on one level, makes the universe or that singularity eternal - something that is still debated in the scientific world. So don't go swallowing scientific facts without giving some personal reflection to it yourself.
And, I do know what zero energy is, at least as defined and promoted by Lawrence Krauss. No more, no less. It is as yet the most scientific and logical (at same time) theory of the origin of the universe - though that is not saying much.

PhysicsQED: This idea implied by this argument is fallacious. It implies that there is something spatial about nothingness and that therefore nothingness is something that can be expanded into. Once again it is totally unnecessary to posit the existence of something external to the universe to talk about its expansion.

To summarize, what I'm saying is that there is no evidence (actual experimental evidence) that there is anything outside of the universe. Basically the universe is all that there is, though I am not making claims about whether there are or are not any special/extraordinary attributes to it beyond what we can observe, such as an entity or guiding principle of the universe that influences the rules/guidelines for how the universe is to exist.

Come on man, I must say, you are too 'scientific' to the point of hogwash. Deepsight is making more sense here. Don't tell me that there is no evidence that there is anything outside the universe. This is simple logic; we don't need evidence for this. Because if there isn't anything outside the Universe (as we rightly don't know), what then is there - nothing? Fair enough. Was this 'nothing' there before the Big Bang? Obviously. Well, did this 'nothing' negate the existence of Time. This is where definitions of Time get ridiculous.
Let's not get scientific to the point we don't make simple sense. You have been arguing that Time couldn't have existed before the Big Bang - Claptrap. This is like the 'If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?' riddle.
Because the Universe didn't exist then, doesn't mean that that metaphysical entity in which events unfold at some point (Time) didn't exist. Because Light, matter or scientists were not there to observe or measure it doesn't negate its existence. That, I think is Deepsight's idea of Layman's time.
So, no. There obviously was either Something or Nothing before the Big Bang..common sense and logic tells us that. If there was something, what was it? If there was nothing? From whence did all the matter in that singularity spring from? These are the valid points to debate and not the 'no Time before the big bang' hogwash.

NIGERIA IS BETTER OFF SPLIT - QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRATUM BY MOST OF THE WRITERS ON THIS TOPIC. There is no future in one Nigeria. Nigeria as is, is not a nation but the largest camping site in the world, with every individual, family, tribe and ethnic group pitching their tent and trying to carve a future out of the chaos. We need nations not political failed unions.

@PhysicsQED,
I don't really follow you and have not read a lot of your posts. What do you mean by 'there is nothing like "before the big b.ang"' The big b.ang happened at a point in 'Time', did it not? And however, you may define 'Time', the big bang had a 'beginning'. Saying there is nothing like "before the big bang" sounds like the big b.ang or whatever led to it always was....Am I reading you right? However, you explain this with the context of Newtonian time, the question remains about the origin of the big bang and what existed before it happened. And if nothing did, (or Nothing like I wrote earlier) then, we go back to the question, how did it come about? And back to whole zero point energy theory as a possible answer.

Deep Sight: Please don't task me to point out the baseless assumptions (arising from your obvious omniscience) contained in this post.

Well, Deepsight, you are evidently not an educated person if you are not aware or seek to argue this basic point about evolution. Baseless Assumptions? It is evident in nature and all around you. Have you ever read the origin of species by Darwin? Or is Darwin as idiotic as Krausse and should learn from the all knowing You and your well informed theory about the First Cause, the universal mind - something that equates to a lot of hot air.

truthislight: o! What a relief, it is a mans view.

Oh I mentioned Krausse simply as an example. The zero point energy theory is embedded deeply in quantum physics and Krausse is building on this. You might want to know that knowledge in scientific is never really confined to one individual. Scientists usually work and experiment in conjunction with other scientists.

truthislight: that is why i cant see a purpose for this your post. And since i dont know you i dont want to add that there is a purpose to your life like humans always does.

So all you have written and your life is purposeless.

Well, if you can't see a purpose for my post, then you are either finding it difficult to understand what I've broken down in simple terms or you have shut your mind to learning anything other than what you believe in.
As to there being no purpose to my life, you may have meant that as an insult, but in some way, you are right. My life in itself is purposeless. I wasn't born or created with a purpose in the mind of any 'creator' as you believers would believe. I am an absolutely contingent being - that is I am just as much as I may not have been. I didn't have to be. I am simply the sperm that got to an egg first (And so are you my friend).
However, now I am here, it is up to me to imbue my existence with purpose, to lace my actions with intentions towards a goal. I make my own purpose; I give my life its purpose.

PhysicsQED: You say this because. . .?



What schools are these? Reference?

To your first question, I say that because it is logical. We cannot have an infinite regress...at some point there must have been a first cause that could not have been created and is eternal OR that came from 'nothing'. Now that something is eternal is problematic because if it is some-thing, then it came into being, it be-came. The only thing that can be eternal is Nothing or Void. So something must have come from Nothing or the Void. This is the only option.
But (and this answers question 2) scientists have proposed that the Nothing or Void before the Big Bang was not strictly nothing. It was a vacuum state with zero point energy - the lowest possible energy of a mechanical physical system. This is pure potential for becoming under which matter is popping in and out of existence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy explains more about zero point energy.
Read up on Prof Lawrence Krausse and his views on this.

wiegraf: It's like asking what's the sun's purpose in shining. It doesn't have one, likely because it's inanimate. Don't know why people have trouble with this (perhaps we could get them to fly there on a faith powered rocket to ask the sun its purpose).

If someone wishes to call the scientific method dogmatic well...

Indeed my friend, people cant seem to get away from the 'purpose' thing. That's why a lot of people equate evolution with pure chance and say the beauty in nature could not have come from pure chance. Well evolution may be purposeless but it is natural engineering at work and therefore it is not simply pure chance. Anyway, its for folk to go read up on it.

Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumbering robots”, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activity of brains.

3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big slam, when all the matter and energy of the Universe suddenly appeared).

Well, yes science as a discipline and a path to knowledge has to take things apart and study its constituent parts so it makes sense for science to see nature as a machine. Other scientific schools of thought (like some branches of philosophy) still emphasize the point that the whole is more than a sum of its parts and this view is also employed in the utilisation of the products of scientific knowledge. For instance, medicine largely recognises the importance of environment, family and work on a person's general health - and not just drugs. However, it would be problematic reaching knowledge without taking a dispassionate, detached view as science does.

Point 2 is explained by my earlier post on nature being purposeless. So the sum may come to be greater than constituent parts and the activity of the brain producing consciousness in the human but each cell and neuron are themselves purposeless. And human consciousness is no illusion, it is real or I wouldn't be typing this. But yes, it is an activity of the brain.

Point 3, I am no expert in but at some point in the past, something would have had to come from nothing or from something that cannot be created. Some schools point to this something as the zero point energy (potential energy) that was there before the bang.

Finally, all of these are not dogma; they cannot be because they are open to correction and falsification. As Karl Popper said; the value of a scientific theory is in its openness to falsification. If there is no way to falsify it (to test for errors) then it is not scientific and has very little truth value.

Ubenedictus: hahaha, did u noticed d way u leaped? From talking about language to infrastructure. Wow, not even all d wealth in d world can truly satisfy man, man will alway ask for more. And hey ask regards d languages, in case u dont know there is something called concordance, u can almost translate d whole bible without understanding or speaking d original language. Besides u hold on to evolution and im very sure u havent see a single 'homo habilis'.
Peace

Oh if i had a naira for every time an uninformed person asks this kind of question about evolution? Go and read up on evolution for yourself. By the way, it is a scientific fact. It's as ridiculous denying the law of gravity as denying evolution. It's only in religion riddled poor uneducated countries like Nigeria that people know little or still fight evolution.
Anyway, religion is an evil (especially the imported ones - christianity and islam) because it takes human responsibility and puts it in the hands of a god. When humans begin to take direction from elsewhere and shirk the use of their own reason, they become puppets and cannot take control of their destiny. Go read up on the Renaissance - the great revolution in knowledge that brought Europe out of the dark ages. It began in shaking the status quo in all sectors especially religion. Scientists began challenging religious dogma and slowly set Europe on the path to greatness. Whereas in Nigeria, because of religion, we are still busy accusing and torturing children of witchcraft - something that went out of Europe at least two centuries ago. How backward! We are Fools indeed!

Oh sorry, with regard, to the second part of your question, it is very interesting that you mention psychological motivations because I think that it wasn't God that created humans in his image and likeness, it was the other way round. Humans have long engaged the question of the origin of all things and having decided that it must have started with a force that was itself uncaused (as you cannot have an infinite regress) they proceeded to give this force attributes. We are imaginative beings and because we are purposeful beings as well, we tend to see purpose in everything around us especially in Nature. Therefore the first cause must have had a purpose in mind to cause the universe and nature. That was where it began, the first cause was imbued with purpose and mind, next came will, emotions, likes and dislikes, rules, laws, favourite humans, messengers, son, sacrifice and so on. This is why our religions and their doctrines, especially, Christianity is largely anthropomorphic. It is a reflection of our own human lives and society...so we have a king and leader who sits on the throne (like most human societies). He has a son or prince who would succeed his dad and with his dad, gives us laws. If we disobey, we end up in prison (hell) except Catholics made it one better; if we have committed a minor offence, we go in temporarily (Purgatory) but major offences carry a life term (hell).

Pastor AIO: @Comnsense, it would be interesting to hear what heidegger's ideas were, or at least what your understanding of Heidegger's ideas are. Could you give us a brief summary of it?

I am particularly interested in the distinction you make between 'Being' and the 'attributes of personality'. I'm interested because I also see God as not being subjected to the psychological motivations and urges that drive human behaviour, and I want to know if there are parallels between his 'attributes of personality' and what I call psychological motivations.

Mr Anony, there have been several theories about God, from the practically abstract to a willing, acting being. Heidegger's idea of God (Zein or Sein, memory fails) which he referred to as Being is rather abstract as encompassing all of reality both visible and invisible, and yet separate (as in not simply same as)from natural reality. Being is always becoming, emanating onto natural reality. Confusing? Well, that was Heidegger's trademark. He was careful to stress that Being was void of personality, emotions and or purpose...we should not impose human qualities onto Being. In my opinion, Heidegger's Being was as confusing (dare I say convoluted) as the doctrine of the trinity where the three persons are three separate individual entities, each fully God and yet there is only one God. Any suggestion that the trinity might simply be separate manifestations of one God or the like is heresy. There are three separate persons, each God but one God. This in my view is bull.

Anyway, Heidegger's view of God is quite impersonal, not to mention, confusing. Other might see God as simply a force, the First Cause. But if this God is void of personality, then it is not really 'God', not to be worshipped or to have a relationship with. It is simply an acknowledged non-living force. Some religions tend not to get this distinction trying to go for a God that is in Nature and perhaps is Nature, but when you ask of the attributes of this God, like if it is alive, has a will, a mind, purpose, can plan, influence the world of people, they sometimes say yes. In that case, that God is really a Person hanging about somewhere and interfering with humans and all that talk of Nature is simply pretentious, otherwise, that God is not really 'God' because the idea of a god or deity is mainly down to there being a relationship, one of worship. I mean we can have a relationship with Nature but not the kind of relationship where one expects Nature to directly influence situations in their life, like help them pass an exam say.

@Deepsight, my friend i have been following your posts for some time and longing to challenge your Deism position. I don't know how logical the notion of a first cause is in proving the existence of God. Also, your definition of the First Cause (which as you point out is not an old man in the sky) also has holes. The universal mind? What does that mean? Does this mind have a will, can it act, know, affect the world of people. Can it feel? If you are answering yes to all these questions, then you have a Being, a Person as believed in by Christianity or Islam. You in effect have a 'Man in the clouds' only, you have chosen not to think of him as such. You might want to read up on the philosopher Heidegger. He proposed the idea of Being that closely resembled the idea of God but he was careful not to give Being any attributes of personality or he would have fallen into the trap of theism. Unless, I am reading you wrong...what then is Deism or how does it differ from theism?

And by the way, Soyinka (from a post you commented on a year ago) gave a valid and plausible albeit short answer why he was atheist to the Christian God. It is the Judeo-Christian God as opposed to those of African religions that seeks to control and direct human actions and to tell people what to do and how to live their lives. Ogun does not do that; neither does Amadioha. So Soyinka's reply that he cannot see how a God would be responsible for the actions or inactions of seven billion people was succinct and to the point on a core difference between his religion and the big world ones.

Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.

PhysicsQED: If a mutation increases the biological fitness of an organism, that is evolution. Increasing the fitness of an organism is definitely a goal/direction.

Well, yes nature is purposeless; we may want to attribute a purpose to it to link it with an 'intelligent' designer. Evolution is simply about 'what works, survives' full stop. So indirectly, it has a goal to increase the fitness and therefore survival of an organism. But it doesn't 'set' out with any purpose. There is no goal or direction. 99.9 percent of all the species that ever existed are now extinct so where they survived in one era, they were not well equipped in some other. That demonstrates the lack of any direct purpose or design in nature or evolution. It is simply about the survival of the fittest at each point in time.

OH AND YOU SAY ATHEISTS DABBLE IN DRINK, SEX, MURDER, DRUGS TO RUN FROM THEIR CONSCIENCE OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT? DO YOU THINK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE HAPPY? REALLY? WELL, GO AND THINK HARD ABOUT THE NATURE OF MAN. WE ARE RESTLESS BEINGS, EASILY BORED, NEEDING ENTERTAINMENT AND EXCITEMENT. PEOPLE FIND IT IN DIFFERENT WAYS; THAT IS WHY PASSIONATE PEOPLE LIVE THE FULLEST OF LIVES. STATES OF MIND OFFER THE MOST EXCITEMENT BECAUSE THE MIND IS THE SEAT OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS. THAT IS WHY PEOPLE TAKE DRUGS AND DRINK TO ALTER AND PRODUCE A DIFFERENT, MORE EXCITABLE STATE OF MIND. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO A RAVE? THEY ARE USUALLY DRINK AND DRUG FUELLED. GO TO ONE AND TELL ME IF THERE ARE ANY OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM AND A TYPICAL CHRISTIAN REVIVAL IN NIGERIA. RELIGION ALSO OFFERS AN ALTERED AND EXCITABLE STATE OF MIND; IT IS A VERY POTENT DRUG. THAT IS WHY VERY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE USUALLY CUT OFF FROM THE WORLD, SOCIALLY INEPT AND IN MANY CASES, MENTALLY UNSTABLE. BUT THEY PUT ALL THIS DOWN TO SOME BIBLICAL REVELATION, APPARITIONS, BEING HATED BY THE WORLD BECAUSE THEY LOVE JESUS. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ESPECIALLY THE UNINFORMED, NON QUESTIONING ONES AS NIGERIA IS FILLED WITH ARE VERY SAD INDEED, BURDENED WITH RELIGIOUS ADHERENCE, LIVING IN FEAR OF JUDGEMENT DAY AND HELL FIRE AND CHASING PASTORS AND MIRACLES. UNBRIDLED AND UNCHECKED RELIGIOUS ADHERENCE FILLS A LIFE, COLONISES THE MIND AND MAKES ONE A VERY DIFFERENT PERSON - AND THIS IS NOT USUALLY IN A GOOD WAY. MOST PEOPLE ARE RELIGIOUS ESPECIALLY IN POOR COUNTRIES AS AN ESCAPE (LIKE A DRUG WOULD PROVIDE). SO YOU THINK BECAUSE IT CONCERNS GOD, THIS 'DRUG' IS MORALLY ACCEPTABLE EVEN WHEN IT WRECKS THE HUMAN BEING? THINK! THINK! THINK!

MR POSTER, LISTEN TO A REAL ATHEIST HERE AND SEE HOW I TICK YOUR BOXES. EVERYONE WHO IS NOT AND HAS NOT BEEN AN ATHEIST IN SOME MEASURE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS BIG AND IMPORTANT IN THEIR LIVES IS AN ABSOLUTE FOOL!! ATHEISM IS SYNONYMOUS WITH QUESTIONING; NOT SWALLOWING EVERY BULL PASSED ON TO YOU. IF YOU DON'T QUESTION, YOU ARE A FOOL! MOST CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS ESPECIALLY NIGERIAN ONES HAVE NEVER QUESTIONED WHY THEY PRACTICE THEIR FAITH. THEY DON'T CONSIDER THAT THEY WOULD BE OF AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FAITH AND JUST AS FERVENT IF THEY SIMPLY HAD BEEN BORN INTO THAT FAITH. YOU HANG YOUR WHOLE BEING ON A FAITH THAT IS SIMPLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL BY BIRTH AND HAVE THE GALL TO HAVE A DIG AT ATHEISTS WHO ARE SIMPLY BEING SENSIBLE!?
THE WHITE MAN CAME, ROBBED YOU, MURDERED, IMPRISONED AND SHED YOU OF YOUR DIGNITY, TOLD YOU YOUR RELIGIONS ARE FILTHY, WORTHLESS, LOW AND BARBARIC AND REPLACED IT WITH A FANTASTICAL STORY OF SOME JEWISH MAN WHO WAS GOD BUT WAS KILLED AND ROSE FROM THE DEAD AND YOU SWALLOWED IT WITHOUT QUESTION? YOU ARE A FOOL. THIS IS BEYOND FAITH; THIS IS STUPIDITY. AT LEAST, ASK SOME QUESTIONS!
THE POSTER TALKS ABOUT ATHEISTS SAYING 'BEING GOOD IS THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING' BUT THAT BEING GOOD IS SUBJECTIVE AND IT TAKES A SUPREME BEING TO GIVE US OBJECTIVE MORALITY. WELL, MR POSTER, IF THIS MORALITY IS OBJECTIVELY GOOD, THEN IT IS OBJECTIVELY GOOD INDEPENDENT OF GOD!!! THINK!! THAT MEANS GOD HIMSELF IS BOUND BY THAT MORALITY; HE IS ALSO UNDER A LAW; HE IS NOT ALMIGHTY. IF HE IS AS BOUND TO THAT MORALITY AS WE ARE, THEN WE TOO CAN ATTAIN KNOWLEDGE OF THAT MORALITY AS HE CAN. AND WE GET THIS KNOWLEDGE BY REASON!! GROW UP PEOPLE. ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF. I DON'T BELIEVE THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN. I KNOW IT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN PROVED! BELIEF IS FOR THINGS (USUALLY BULL) THAT CANNOT BE PROVED! BELIEF IS THE DOMAIN OF RELIGION. ATHEISM IS ABOUT QUESTIONING, INVESTIGATING AND KNOWING!!!

Every christian here who has preached Jesus but claimed Juju does not work or cannot get you a job is a fool and a hypocrite. How many people in Nigeria don't pray to some God, be it christian or islamic before they go for an interview, on a journey or embark on a task. Most Nigerians profess one foreign faith or another and have the nerve to disparage juju or say it doesn't work. Fools and hypocrites - your new religion is as much 'juju' like the juju you are running down.

StarFlux: If you understood my arguement at all, then you wouldn't be asking all these questions. I suggest re-reading it. I explained why time/beggining doesn't have to apply to God. There are many fundamental difference between God and humans. God is eternal - the human body is not. God is without sin. God is everywhere. Just to mention a few. So no, that "logic" doesn't have to apply to humans at all.

Also, the rest of your arguement aimed towards Jesus just shows that you have no knowledge of Christianity. Jesus died because death was necessary. The punishment for sin (in this case our sin) is death.
I still think my arguement is reasonable and I will leave the rest up to you. I also don't respond well to insults.
So my friend, this is it for me. I would love to continue this discussion, but when you can't discuss in a proper manner, I will leave before it gets ugly.

I wish you all the best!

You keep saying God is eternal and beyond time. I have repeatedly said that you cannot make a statement like that without first demonstrating by verifiable proof that God exists. But even if we let you get away with that, let's look at the other thing you said. "It was necessary for Jesus to die because the punishment for sin is death" Who/What made that rule to punish sin with death? Who would be doing the punishing? Is God powerful enough to overturn this rule? The last question is the main one. Either God is powerful enough to overturn that rule or not - it has to be one or the other. Either answer has serious consequences for the theory that Jesus died for our sins. Like I mentioned earlier, an answer of yes shows that Jesus' death was simply a show off and not really a sacrifice; an answer of no shows that God is himself bound under a law, not all powerful and limited.
This is simple and straightforward and you can't escape that logic whether you argue from now until the cows come home.

StarFlux: Well, there are many flaws in your way of thinking. You assume everything needs to have a beginning. That is not necessarily true or a provable fact. Then you also indirectly bring in time. I will give you a "logical" example of my idea. God is not bound by our rules, and that includes time. It is said in the Bible that to God, one day is like a 1000 years, and a 1000 years like a day. Because you based your arguement on time, it will fall. There are many things we humans have yet to understand, and may never understand. So in a sense, we are limited. Therefore, disproving God, Who is unlimited, will not work.

Again with this "logic" of yours. There are many things which appears as illogical at first, but then appears as logical later. Agree? Jesus already defied your sense of "logic" when He died and rose again. Perhaps that Jesus came back alive seems illogical to you, but isn't the reason He died for us logical? He died for our sins so we can have a place in heaven. That is very logical considering our sinful nature. We will perhaps never understand how Jesus came back alive because it is beyond our understanding, but we do know the reason! So I ask you: why is YOUR "logic" so important to you? God is here, whether you percieve Him as logical or not. Isn't it then logical that your logic is not unlimited like God, so you cannot apply your logic to everything. God is unlimited and that's why there is nothing He cannot do.

Is this a debate? A debate is showing how you arrive at conclusions from logical premises. With all due respects, I feel small getting into this with you because you are showing that you haven't the first clue about how to lay a valid argument. You bring in the bible to argue with an atheist - how can I take that seriously? I never said 'everything has to have a beginning'. Go read my last post again. On the contrary, I said you cannot claim anything incredible and complex, like my body, has to have a beginning otherwise you have to extend that same logic to God and show us God's beginning. (Is this too much to understand?) You bring in Jesus' death and resurrection - what is this? You haven't yet demonstrated any of that flap is true so how can you bring it into an argument. God is unlimited? How do you know this? Any proof (And please not the bible. A proof objective and verifiable to all).
You said

I will give you a "logical" example of my idea. God is not bound by our rules, and that includes time. It is said in the Bible that to God, one day is like a 1000 years, and a 1000 years like a day. Because you based your arguement on time, it will fall. There are many things we humans have yet to understand, and may never understand. So in a sense, we are limited. Therefore, disproving God, Who is unlimited, will not work.

Is this logic? You simply made a series of conclusions that you haven't demonstrated how you arrived at. How and why is God not bound by our rules and time? Who is God first and is he even there? You have got to show these first before making statements about God - that is logic.
Now let me ask you. If God is all powerful and all merciful, why did Jesus have to die so he could forgive us? Why couldn't he just forgive us? Was he able to forgive us without Jesus dying? This last question can only have two answers, yes or no. If yes, then either Jesus was a fraud or God/Jesus was simply showing off to impress us and win our adoration, praise and worship. That is too low for any God.
If no, then God is limited and not all powerful like you say.
This is how you show by logic that the death of Jesus itself is a logical fallacy against God and the message of christianity. It is not really your fault; your forefathers too busy being scared by the white man and his silly message of hell and heaven were not able to see this insane flaw in the claim of christianity.

StarFlux: As I said, it's up to you.

I told you where to find God, yet you keep arguing. Why is that, are you bothered? I mention Jesus because it is necessary.

Here's a part of an excellent article:
Source: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

'God is all around me' is no place to find God. How can I find something that does not exist. What I see all around me is not God or evidence for God. Go read up on evolution proper; I cannot start breaking down the theory here to explain your fascination with the programming of human cells. If it takes a designer to program the human body as you have just said, then that designer must itself be a more complex, more programmed being. Then who/what programmed that designer.
In other words, who made God. Don't start making any silly leap of faith and say 'God had no beginning' because that is not logical or scientific. You used logic to argue that our programmed bodies must have had a designer, therefore, keep with that same logic and tell us what designer designed the designer/God who designed our bodies. Where does it all end? If you want to argue that because it is complex and incredible, it must have a designer, then your God is also complex and incredible, who designed God then?
And please leave Jesus out of it - he has no business here. He was just some jewish scholar among others who was persecuted and killed. You may believe he rose from the dead and is God but that is your belief, without evidence and illogical. Let's stick to what matters, that which is logical.