₦airaland Forum

4everGod:
The Joke here is on you because you seem to think lying exists alone.

Lying works hand in hand with stealing, deception, etc so anyone who tells you lying is harmless and you bought into that, shows how your atheistic mind reasons.

You have no sense at all. Who is harmed when comedians lie to entertain people? No one considers what try are doing bad because people pay money to be entertained by their lies. Tell me who is harmed or short changed when he/she listens to the a comedian telling lies. Why don't we consider it as a bad thing?

incidentally from your position all the examples i gave are not harmful to you or the child are they? The soft drink your child is drinking is refreshing her especially on a hot day

The football your child lied about is paying millions of dollars to footballers today.

The egg he or she ate is actually more nutritious than the rice you left for your child to eat.

You obviously have comprehension problems. By harmless I.mean no one is hurt on both sides. That is why I have an example of the lies that comedians give as harmless lies. No body is harmed or feels cheated from listening to lies comedians tell. But in this case I will feel cheated when my child takes my money or steals my eggs. If an armed robber steals your mone and even kills you in the process, he can't and won't be harmed in anyway. Only the victims are harmed. So I wonder why you are saying that the person lying isn't harmful to the child. Which lie ever harms the perpetrator? You clearly do not even know what you are saying. When I say a lie is harmless I.mean both the liar and the person being lied to suffer bo harm at all and I gave example with the lies comedians tell because no body feels cheated or harmed as a result. People even.pay money to he lied to by comedians because it is.purely for entertaientertainment.

I just showed you how harmless but profitable those lies are but you actually saw DECEIT and STEALING. Now tell me again how harmless lies are regardless of their kind.

They are not harmless. If my child steals from me he has not done a harmless thing to me. I wonder why you are saying the lies are harmless to him. Which lie is ever harmful to the person telling the lies? No lie is ever harmful to the person telling the lies. Lies only affect the people being lied to not the person telling the lies.

Comedians themselves are liars and no matter the kind of excuse they give trying to justify using lies to tell jokes its still a lie. Thats why the bible addresses these in the following chapters and verses

Matthew 12:36

"But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment

Psalm 12:2

They speak falsehood to one another; With flattering lips and with a double heart they speak.

FYI i am not amused by comedians when they give lies as examples in their jokes. A joke can be clean and free of lies. People can use real situations that occurred to tell a joke and have no need to fabricate lies.

Ecclesiastes 10: 10

If the iron be blunt, and he do not whet the edge, then must he put to more strength:but wisdom is profitable to direct.

Of course we all know that comedians are liars. They formulate false stories just to entertain people and make them laugh. I was the fist to call them lairs, but the thing is we don't consider their lies as a bad thing because no body is harmed or feels cheated as a result of their lies. No one sees tdir lies a s a bad thing, people in large numbers pay.money to hear them entertain them with lies. That is an example of a harmless lie. You on the other hand are just arguing aimlessly. From linking theft to lies and saying it is harmless to saying that lying doesn't harm the lair etc. You do not know what you are saying.

Lying to save lives from.terrorist for example is not bad. You agreed to it and said you will do same. Lying to entertain people as comedians do is also not bad. Those are the two examples of lies that I said are not bad.

When I say you are a joke I trulymean it. I gave an example of a harmless lie with comedians and the lies they tell as something that can't be classified as bad, compare that with the nonsense you have given as harmless lies a child will tell and weep at your stupidity.

4everGod:
[/b]

So when your child says he or she is going to study in a friends house but ends up going to play football in the field

This is not a harmless lie like the one a comedian tells. This is deliberate deception. You can not compare it to the lies comedians tell that harms no body but entertains people. Comedians lie but we pay money to listen to then because such lies are harmless.

or

when you are going out and leave rice for your child to eat but he or she ends up frying eggs to eat and then takes a bit of the rice and throws it away so as to give the impression that he ate it and goes on to lie to you that he actually ate rice

This is not just a deliberate deception but stealing as well. He stole eggs fried and ate and lied after stealing. That is in now way the same as the lies comedians tell. Stealing and lying at the same time is not harmless.


Or

When you catch your child whom you know you give no pocket money to drinking a bottle of mineral and he or she lies that the friend bought it for him/her but you do not know the friend he mentions

This is clearly an example of stealing and lying . It is not harmless.

How are these harmful to you or the child?

Again i ask you, if your child tells harmless lies to you, would you approve and reward the child or would you scold the child?

You are a joke my friend. I said some lies are good, some are bad and some are harmless and can not be considered good or bad and in each case I gave examples. For a good lie I gave the example of saving life, for a harmless lie I gave an example of the lies comedians tell. You on the other hand are giving me examples of deceptive lies and theft as examples of harmless lies. You are a joke. You clearly do not know what you are talking about. After agreeing that you are going to lie to save lives you are still here blabbing nonsense.

4everGod:
author=dalaman post=52548486]
Dalaman the liar and propagator of lies . I have given you my answer and you are free to read it the way you wish.

Pretending to be what you are not is tantamount to telling lies. You yourself have agreed that you will pretend to be what you are not (tell lies) in order to save lives. That much is very clear.

I thought you were reeling out examples earlier why can you not offer further examples of harmless lies your child would tell? I see you love dodging when you are caught in your confusion

My question is a direct one...you are free to give your own examples of a harmless lie a child would tell. My question was simply how would you respond to your child when he or she tells a harmless lie? Would you appreciate and reward him or would you scold the child?

Unless of my child is playing the role of a comedian and entertaining us in the house, I see no other example of a harmless lie a child can tell and I won't scold him for that.

4everGod:
I strongly suggest you do the shutting up because you are beginning to sound like a kid who lost his lollipop. There are 3 answers to any question, YES, NO OR SILENCE. Do i lie to save a life and offend God or do i maintain my position as a lover of God by not lying? What stops me from pretending to be a Blind man or a deaf and dumb man instead of saying they are in my house? What stops me from concealing them properly while deliberately holding a conversation with someone about where they went and acting ignorant about where they entered?]

You are a joke, seriously. You are already lying to them by pretending that you are blind or deaf and dumb. You have already lied by pretending to be what you are not. So you have already lied. How can you hold a conversation with someone when terrorist are asking you a question? Anyway you have already answered. Even you don't consider lying a bad thing in this case because you said you will pretend that you are deaf or blind which itself is a lie because you aren't deaf or blind, but in order to save lives from terrorist you'll do that. So lying to save lives is offending God. You and your God must be teribly immoral if that is the case IMO.

Do you need an example of a harmless lie your child would tell? If you do then you really need help. We are not talking about Comedians but your own child in your own house. How would you handle a harmless lie your child would tell? Would you encourage it and reward him or would you scold him?

I said there are some lies that are harmless and I gave the lies comedians tell as examples of harmless lis. I was very specific. You on the other hand are talking about harmless lies from kids and I am.asking you to provide examples. Give me an example of a harmless lie that a child will tell. I have given you an example.of what I.meant by a harmless lie. Give me yours.

4everGod:
You are still repeating the same thing by tagging people as liars simply because you feel like it.

Misinformation is something you are very good at and i have shown it clearly here with the posts about The Bible rules and your desperation]

You did no such thing. I told you to tell me the title and which episode. You refused. We can go to the history Channel website and look it up. You refused because you know no such thing exist.

Lying is bad, simple as that. If a terrorist is after your life dalaman and i know where you are hiding and they capture me and ask me and give me the condition of telling the truth and exposing you, i will not tell them where you are hiding but i will also not lie, i would be wise! Wisdom is the principal thing

Shut up. If 10 people running away from terrorist hide in your house and the terrorist come and ask if they are inside your house or not? Will you lie to save then? If you tell them they are inside they will be killed. If you tell them they aren't the terrorist will walk away. Will you lie or not and if you do , do you consider it to be a bad thing?

[Now as Kingebukasblog asked you, if your kid told a harmless lie would you appreciate his lie and reward him or would you see it as a bad thing and scold him?

Give me and example of a harmless lie a child can tell. I have clearly given an example of a harmless lie that isn't bad and I have the example as the ones comedians tell jut to entertain people. We all know they are lying but we don't consider it as bad. We even pay money to hear such lies.

KingEbukasBlog:
Exactly ! Why call you a liar if no one is being hurt by your lies ? He knows lying is bad and he knows that people lose trust in dishonest people . That's why he's hell bent on labeling anyone who opposes his view a liar .

Its very dangerous to raise kids with a such a mentality . So Dalaman , if your child tells a harmless lie would you give him a dose of disapprobation or would you approve of it ? I really need to understand how these atheists live their lives in the real world ?

Let me be very clear. You guys just love twisting what a persin says just to make non existing points. I said there are good and bad lies. Lying to save a life is a good thing. If a man is trying to kill his wife and I tell a lie to save her life then the lie becomes a good thing. There are also lies that are neutral. The type comedians make to entertain people. Such lies are the ones I was referring to as those that harm nobody. As such they can not be said to be bad because they are just told to entertain people. I was very specific in all the types of lies I talked about. Any other thing is your own making. Islam for example permits lying in some special cases. Is.lying to save the lives of people from a terrorist a bad thing?

4everGod:
The guy is a bundle of Contradiction. According to him lying is a good thing as long as it does not hurt anyone yet he is hell bent on tagging me a liar because in his mind its a bad thing and would discredit me. Talk about a bundle of contradiction.

I have told you that as far as atheists are concerned, anything is permissible as long as it can be used to defend their worldview and that includes lying like its going out of fashion.

I have clear cut examples of what I meant. When you deliberately lie to misinform the way you always do. Then it's bad.

Is lying to save the lives of people from a terrorist a bad thing?

KingEbukasBlog:
@ Dalaman

If lying is good as far as it does not harm someone then stop calling people on this forum liars ; they are doing a good thing since no one is being hurt by telling lies

I clearly gave examples of instances where lies can be good. Lying on this forum is against forum rules. You can plagiarize and claim you wrote the material. That is a lie and stealing which is against forum rules. You can spread false information here. Lying cam be good and bad.

Is lying to save the lives of people from terrorist a bad thing? Please answer and don't run away from it as yu always do.

KingEbukasBlog:
Which business ?

Church business.

4everGod:
2 things

Since you said lying is good so you are obviously lying again now that you watched all the episodes yesterday especially when the latest episode was about Bible contradictions and was just freshly aired 2 days ago. Wait for it, it will hit Youtube in a short while.

Also your comment here still further proves that you lied when you accused me of lying when you just admitted to only watching the episodes you could find yesterday but you already called me a liar even before you watched them.

Dalaman

When you click on the episodes on Youtube can you tell me the date sequence it shows? You do know that fresh episodes are being prepared even as we speak and 6 episodes so far on Youtube will soon become 7 as the one of 2 days ago will be uploaded eventually. So chill. History channel does not repeat episodes.

Again you are still the liar here.

The entire series was concluded in 2014. The bible rules is an old documentary. It is not new.

I will just point out a few of your lies.

4everGod:
Oh so now you admit there are various episodes so why call me a liar when you have not watched them all? Dalaman you need help seriously. You quickly tag people as liars when you were actually the one lying even going by your very comment here.

You never admitted to there being various episodes and you never admitted to not even watching the second episode completely but you still called me a liar.

issorait!

You can't stop telling lies. In my very first post I talked about the episodes in the series.

dalaman:


Shut up! You aren't the only person that have watched the documentary. The documentary is actually 3 years old. It isn't new as you claimed. I watched it like 2 years ago.

The documentary was NOT made to show if the bible contains and contradiction or not, it was made to show and provide context behind some of the actions and stories we read inside the bible (something you rightly alluded to). No where does anybody in the whole episodes say that the bible is not contradictory. You are just lying as usual.

I mentioned episodes in my first post to you. But let me get to the bottom of it. I repeat that you lied when you said that the group of historians and archaeologists unanimously agreed that the bible contains no contradiction. You said the episode you watched was on bi let contradiction. If you know that you are NOT a liar. Tell me the ttitle of the episode you watched and let me post if for all to see her from Youtube since all the episodes are on YouTube. I watched all the episodes yesterday. At NO time did the people agree that the bible does not contain any contradiction. There is NO episode on Bible contradictions at all. You lied. Just tell me the episode you watched in the series and I will post it here from you tube so that everybody can watch it and your lies will beade bare. If you know that you are not a liar. Just do as I have said. Tell me the one you watched on Bible contradictions. State the number and I will post it.

There are 6 episodes in the series and there is NON on bible contradiction. I have watched all 6 on YouTube. Non is on Bible contradictions. You are a liar.

Let me list all the 6 here.

■The Bible Rules S01E01 The Curse

■The Bible Rules S01E02 Sex

■The Bible Rules S01E03 War

■The Bible Rules S01E04 Vice

■The Bible Rules S01E05 False Prophets

■The Bible Rules S01E06 Ancient Slavery

Which of the 6 episodes is on Bible contradictions you liar? Tell us so that I'll post from Youtube for all to see. Tell me the episode that is on Bible contradictions.


Remember you have been caught red handed replying your self with two different monikers of yours, yet you still have the audacity to call abother person a lair.

felixomor:
No bros, u cant be right to tell a lie, if she killed a person.
If its so, we will all defend our crimes, one way or the other.
The person cheating in a medical school exam, will say he cheated so that he can become a doctor fast so as to go into the world to save lives. Forgetting that he is putting the lives of future patients at risk.

If she killed a person is it her husband that is supposed to kill her? If she killed a person hee husband is not supposed to kill her but hand hee over to the authorities. . If he kills her he would have committed a crime himself
But that was not what I had I mind. What I had in mind was her cheating on him and him trying to kill her. If I lie in that case I have done nothing wrong at all. There are good and bad lies. The presin cheating in medical school is breaking the law. Lying to save a person whose husband wants to kill her for cheating isn't breaking any law. Even if she killed someone you aren't breaking any law because her husband is the one that is breaking the law. He is NOT supposed to kill his wife because she killed someone unless if you believe that her husband is right to kill her , of you do them you are the one that is wrong. When you kill a person the authorities are the ones to judge and persecute you, not your husband or people around.

The policeman who has not been paid salary for months, whose kids are starving, will be right to collect "small'N20" so that he can continue to maintain law and order in the society, not knowing he is motivating other corrupt officials for corruption.

A police man in such a situation is not lying, he is breaking the law. We are talking about lies here. Let's stay on topic.

You can see that ur "nobody is harmed" principles will eventually cripple the world

No it doesn't. When comedians invent lies and entertain people with it as they do always, does it cripple the world? If a man is trying to kill his wife because he accused her of cheating on him and I tell a lie to save her life I haven't done a bad thing. I have done a good thing instead.

You could have resisted the husband without telling a lie.

As I Illustrated earlier, I said he came with a weapon and what if he is much stronger than I am with blood in his eyes? If I can't resist him, lying to save her life is a very good thing. Nobody was harmed and no damage was done.

[And thats the best option.
because wether u like it or not, once that woman saw that you lied. You have sown a bad seed in her, that she can use in the future for more terrible things.

Lying to save a woman from being killed by her husband who accuses her of infidelity isn't wrong. It is right. Lying to save the lives of people from terrorist isn't wrong. It is right.

felixomor:
What if the woman killed somebody before running to your house,
Are u still good like that?
Are u not accomplice to cover up for her crime?

I am not talking about her killing a person, but even if she killed a person I am still right, because the law of the land states that no amount of anger should make you take the laws into your hands. The husband has no right to kill her because she killed another person. That is left for the authorities. So I am still right by lying to him. No I am not an accomplice in covering up for any crime. I actually saved her husband from committing a crime (killing her).

KingEbukasBlog:
The Lord's Chosen Charismatic Revival Movement presents a 3 day Annual Revival Crusade

Tagged :What God Has Determined Shall Be Done

Date : 6th , 7th and 8th January 2017

Time : 8:00 AM Daily

Venue : The Lord's Chosen International Secondary School , Mgbidi Imo State

Ministering Live : Pastor Lazarus Muoka (General Overseer)


Testimonies will be abundant .

The Lame will walk , the Blind will see , The deaf will hear , incurable Diseases will be cured by the Power of God . Come with anyone who is indisposed and God will deliver that person and set him/her free forever !

Only Jesus can save

Come and Be Blessed !!!!

Are you tired of hawking your threads? Now you have moved to hawking another man's business.

felixomor:
Hmmmmmm for real?
And who determines whether somebody is harmed or not?

Yes for real. Let me give you an example. Supposing there is this woman whose husband is beating her and trying to kill her, and the woman runs to my house and I hide her in my bedroom. If the husband comes to my house knife in hand and ask me if his wife is inside my house and I lie to him that she isn't and he goes away. I have actually done a good thing because I saved her from being killed by her husband. In this case I told a good lie. When comedians make up lies purely for the sake of entertainment they aren't doing anything bad or wrong.

felixomor:
So, is it bad to tell lies?

Lying is not a bad thing as long as no body is harmed or cheated as a result of it. If I lie to save a life then it becomes a good thing. If I invent lies just to entertain people and make them laugh the way comedians do, then it's not a bad thing. But if I tell lies to cheat or when I bear false witness against another person that leads to the person suffering at the end then lying in this cases become bad. There are good and bad lies.

4everGod:
Since you say Human laws are our foundation how then do you stop yourself from lying Dalaman? Is there a human law against lying that is tantamount to a jail term besides defamation of Character? What stops you from lying when for example you can claim to be a Business tycoon while on a faceless forum (there is no jail term for that) What stops you from lying?

Humans will do things as long as they believe they can get away with it. The fear of punishment and authority actually what stops people from being unruly. That is why some religions invented the concept of after life punishment. If you don't get caught here there is someone else watching your every move. But in reality once people are sure they won't be caught they'll do what ever they like regardless of their belief in God.
When you believed no body will catch you on a faceless forum you lied that opened different monikers and you have been shown replying your self aND denying that the monikers do not belong to you. Even with God you've been caught lying on a faceless forum because you believe you will not be caught. Just yesterday I caught you telling lies because you actually thought you will not be caught. God doesn't matter when it comes to the issues of lies. Pastors and imams for example tell lies daily because they believe they won't be caught, people lie always because they believe they won't be caught.

Or what stops you from stealing or committing rape or murder if you are alone on a desert island with your victim and you know you would never be caught? Can you tell me?

Once people know they will get away with doing things they will do them with or without God, and that includes you. When you thought you'll get away with telling lies you told them, until you were later caught telling lies.

DoctorAlien:
For you, who determines what is permissible and what is not permissible?

The society does that. That is why morality varies from society to society. You can preach inside a bus in Nigeria, but you can't try it in China because the society does not allow it.

4everGod:


Now so if we need checks and balances and you say morality is based on human laws then how come the same humans who put forward these laws as a form of checks and balances also end up breaking the same laws the put up for checks and balances?

Can you say that the human law givers actually got it right and their efforts at creating actual checks and balances is a perfect one?

Moral laws are not perfect. Laws in the past used to permit and regulate slavery for example. Now there are allows that permit and allow child marriages in some parts of the world. Moral codes are never perfect they are human constructs that serve as checks and balances for human activities.

4everGod:
So since even in the variants of human laws worldwide all they are trying to do is define their own version of right and wrong then why do we even have these attempts at defining right and wrong in human laws if we all were born to just "live".

Why do all the nations and religions of the world still have this issue of trying to define right and wrong in their own ways? Why do we not just "exist"?

We can not just exist without some form of checks and balances. That is where morality springs up from, because we are social beings who interact with one another.

4everGod:
Whether they are harmonized laws or not the bottom line even in the disparity is Good and and evil correct? Its not about the different laws. Even when the laws are at variance with each other across countries all these variants are all built on their own version of right and wrong correct?

Sure. The opposite of right is wrong.

4everGod:
Dalaman if moral laws are human construct and vary from places to place what is their common foundation?

Are these laws which you say are human construct based on Good and evil or not even though they vary worldwide.

The common foundation is humans. Morality is a human construct as such humans are at its foundation. Humans create moral codes of conduct for the betterment of their various societies.

It's wrong for women to drive in Saudi Arabia, but the the law will soon be reviewed and modified when it happens it will no longer be a crime or a sin when women drive. In some.parts of the USA smoking Indian hemp is no longer a crime. Marijuana has been allowed for recreational use. It used to be a crime.
Humans make laws for themselves and modify it when they feel it's necessary. Gods don't make laws. Humans do and use Gods and religions as enforcing mechanism. Now we don't use Gods aND religions any more we use law enforcement officers to up hold the laws we create.

Good and evil is relative. People I'm Germany see polygamy as an evil thing., while a person living in Northern Nigeria doesn't see it as an evil thing.

KingEbukasBlog:
Objective moral values and duties such as love , compassion , kindness , forgiveness exist and are seen as morally good . How this objective moral values and duties are performed is not our business . ;

You are not serious.
[quote]If there is no God , then there is no moral law giver . And if there is no moral law giver , there are no moral laws . And if there are no moral laws , then there is no good . And if there is no good , then there is no evil

This is completely not true. Moral laws are human construct. They vary from place to place based on culture and also vary in history. People just use religion and God as enforcing mechanism for what ever mral.codes of conduct they have made back in the days. Now we don't need Gods when formulating moral codes of conduct, we use institutions for that like the tate and national assemblies, governments etc.

I keep coming back to the sharia system of morality. Who created that system? Was it God or men?

But as far you see the aforementioned objective moral values and duties as as good , then a deviation is seen as evil . You now have acknowledged the existence of good and evil . You now need moral laws to help guide you to know what is good and evil . And moral laws can come from a moral law giver who transcends all . And the moral law giver is God.

You haven't shown that morality is not a human construct. You only asserted that morality came from God without any evidence. Morality is a human construct. Men had to teach themselves morality, uphold it and refine it. Humans are the moral.law givers to them selves. Again who formulated the sharia moral system? Was it God or men?

But which religious perspective of God portrays at best the moral law giver - this should be the contentious issue .

This depends on who you ask. To a muslim it's Allah, a Hindu it's Brahma to you it's the God of the bible. So it depends on who you ask.

KingEbukasBlog:
Only about 4 percent of the universe has been observed or is observable and you are here saying most of the universe does not support life .

Like I said "...if these numbers should be altered by a hair's breath then physical interactive life of any kind will not exist anywhere .

That means if these numbers are to be altered , life will not even exist on earth or any part of the universe .

In the 4 percent that has been observed only about 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000001 allows and permits life. Too in signification be considered as anything of value. The universe isn't design to be life permitting because majority of the universe destroys life. Life as we know it will be automatically terminated in most parts of the observable universe.

KingEbukasBlog:
Singularity before expansion . Galaxies have been observed to be moving steadily apart from each other . That means they were closer to each other before in the past .

The best explanation for this is : take a balloon and glue buttons to the balloon . Then fill the balloon with air . You'd observe the higher the volume of air the greater the distance between the buttons . Then release the air slowly from the balloon , you'd see that the distance between the buttons decreases .

In reality the continuous contraction will lead to a single point or singularity . But this singularity isn't a physical affair or state . It is a mathematical idealization

Everything in the universe began to exist at some point because of the law of causality . That's why the argument states that

1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause

2.The universe began to exist

3. Therefore the universe has a cause

There are possible causes

a. God - an uncaused cause

b. Abstract objects

Abstract objects have no beginnings and they exist necessarily. But these abstract objects are causally impotent - they do not cause anything . So we are left with a maximally great being - God - who evidently has the ability to cause the universe to exist approx 14 billion years ago .

The universe began to exist has not been established. It is NOT a scientific fact. Allen Guth when asked if the universe is eternal said it is possible. The universe is energy and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We have not objectively observed the universe coming from nothing and having a begining. We have the big bang model but that it self has so many holes. There is no scientific consensus on the universe having a begining from nothing. It has NOT been established.

I don't think you understand the argument . As far as we can see that objective moral values and duties exist therefore God exists - that is , no matter where we come from we can agree that to show , love , kindness , compassion , justice , even forgiveness are good moral values . And this makes it objective . Therefore , God exists .

How do you go from saying objective moral values existing to saying that God exist? We do not all agree to show love, kindness and compassion the same way. Love, kindness and compassion are all subjective because we express them differently. Some societies believe that showing love to your enemies is wrong as such your enemies must be destroyed. Failure to destroy your enemies is a criminal offence. Other societies believe that forgiving people for violating laws is wrong as such those those that violate laws must be punished.

But that aside. Do you believe that the sharia law as revealed by God is objective since it advocates for justice, fairness, love, orderly conduct, kindness and compassion? Answer the questionand stop running away from it. Is the sharia law objectivesince it shows Gods character?

This has to be expounded .

1. Fine Tuning cannot come by chance : There is possibility that life permitting universe just popped out into existence by chance .

2. Fine tuning cannot come by physical necessity : Since these constants and quantities are not determined by the laws of nature then there's no reason or evidence to suggest that fine tuning is necessary

3. Fine tuning can come by design alone

The fine tuning of the universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants and quantities

Let me give three examples

1. Higgs vacuum expectation value =246.2Gev

2. Electro magnetism coupling constant = 0.00729

3.Cosmological constant = 2.3 x(10)^-3 e(v)^4

Now if these numbers should be altered by a hair's breath then physical interactive life of any kind will not exist anywhere

Take for example

Expansion rate of the universe : (4πG)/3(p+3p) + ^/3

Now if the cosmological constant (^) is changed by even 1 part in 10^120 , this would cause the universe to expand too quickly or too slowly . In either case , the universe would be life prohibiting . Exciting right ?

Even Stephen Hawking admitted : "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

A very logical conclusion is that the universe was designed to be life permitting .

There here's the question if it is possible then the universe could not have existed , then why does it exist ?

Too much meaningless verbiage. If the universe was designed to be life permitting then why is it that most part of the universe will immediately destroy life? So far only the earth as we know permits life. Most part of the universe is made of matter that will immediately destroy life. In fact life can not survive in space. If you leave the earth into space without special gadgets, you'll die immediately. Most part of the universe does not permit life to exist so far the only part of the universe that we know that permits life is so insignificant in the scheme of things. Take away our planet and the universe will not notice anything at all.

If the universe is designed to be life permitting then most parts of the universe will support life, so far only an insignificant part of the universe permits life while all other parts that we know terminates life immediately.

DoctorAlien:
Is everything permissible?

Answer his question. Is it wrong to eat pork?

DoctorAlien:
Why is everything not permissible?

If everything is permissible there will be chaos in the society.

OLAADEGBU:
Then why do you spend all your time talking about them?

I don't spend all my time talking about them. I spend some of my time talking about them because many people believe in the fiction. I talk to and with people that believe in the fiction.

OLAADEGBU:
Atheism is a strange thing.

The devil like God is also fictitious.

felixomor:
Thanks
But u didnt answer the question fully.
Ur answer suggests u need sight with other things hence "alone"
My question is "is sight compulsory"?

No, it is not.

felixomor:
Dalaman,
How far?
U didnt answer my question on sight and ecidence again?

OK, you don't need sight alone to have direct knowledge of things. We can't see the wind, but we have direct knowledge of the wind.

KingEbukasBlog:
Its 6 pages and you ran away from our argument on causality . But it is clear what I was hinting at .

1. The Cosmological Argument still stands

It has been debunked. How many things in nature have you seen begin to exist from the very begining? Have you seen the universe, planets for example begin to exist?

2. The Moral Argument still stands because I showed you three objective moral values : to show love , compassion , kindness

Is the sharia law objective? It advocates for love, compassion, justice for the less privileged and kindness. Do you see it as an objective moral code of conduct? It was revealed by God himself. Why do you disagree with it since it displays God's character?

3. Let's talk about the Teleological Argument for the existence of God

A. The fine tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity , chance or design

B. It is not due to chance or physical necessity

C . Therefore, it is design

What was the universe design for?