₦airaland Forum

DoctorAlien:
We are not talking the Bible now. The question is: is everything permissible?

Which God are you defending here? Brahma? You are defending the God of the bible so why are you objecting when the binle Is brought into the discussion?

How can everything be permissible? Morality by definition doesn't allow for everything to be permissible.

KingEbukasBlog:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Let me atgempt to debunk this entire premise which to me is dubious. Firstly the premise tying the objectivity of morals to God's existence assuming objective morality exist is faulty. How does the person that formulated this moral argument (William Craig ) know that objective morality exist? He does this by appealing to our moral intuitions. How we all intuitively "know" and agree that things like rape, slavery, child abuse etc are wrong and things like.love compassio and kindness are good. Channeling somehow this objective morality.

This to me is absurd because Craig's candidate for the source of morality is a character described in the bible. And yet the bible is FILLED with God producing acts and injunctions that strike many of us - a great many Christians included - as being against our moral intuitions.

It's like saying we all agree that math is valid and objective so there must be a great Mathematician from which math flows. And then saying "Hey, I've got the best candidate for who that mathematician might be...here he is described in this old book!" But the character in the book is found espousing
all manner of "wrong" mathematics, like 2 +2 = 5. Well if you are appealing to the objectivity of mathematical formulations like 2 + 2 = 5 as a starting point then you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

There are behaviors considered as objective moral values like to show love , compassion and kindness . And as far as you see something as evil then it proves the existence of God . Why?

They are not that is why I asked you if the sharia is an objective system of morality. The sharia also advocates for compassion, kindness, justice and love for the umma. But then you do not agree with that kind of love, kindness, justice and compassion, do you?

God is described as Good

First, defining God as the source of “good” is mere theological wordplay. It doesn't demonstrate that “good” cannot exist independently of God. Even if goodness is an essential property of God, it is a property that can apply to other things independently of god’s existence. Just think of how being hot is an essential property of fire, then fire must be hot, it cannot be cold. But “hot” can apply to many other things independently of fire. For example, microwaves cause things to be hot and so does friction.

And evil is just the deviation from good . Good is like a standard while evil is erring from that standard .

Objective : not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Evil is not a deviation from any God. Evil is a deviation or violation of laid out laws and moral codes of conduct. Moral codes of conduct are man made. In Germany it is evil to descrimanate against gays. In the same.Germany it is evil to marry 2 women. In Nigeria on the other hand it is evil to be gay and it is not evil to marry two wIves.

DoctorAlien:
So it's not really immoral to kill people indiscriminately.

The question is, is morality objective. The answer is no.

Morality is a feature and invention of humanity. We must make moral codes of conduct. If morality were objective then every member of our species would share and agree to the the same moral values. But it is a fact that we do not share the same moral values at all. There’s clearly a lack of moral consensus amongst human so how is morality objective when morality varies from society to society and in history?

Kilian g people indiscriminately actually stands against the God of the bible as the source of human morality. If you read the bible you'll see God commanding that people be killed indiscriminately.

KingEbukasBlog:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Objective moral values and duties do not exist, so God does not exist. Argument debunked.

KingEbukasBlog:
Even Muslims reject the Sharia Law

The presence of evil is the proof of the existence of God

You've started with your madness. How can muslims reject the sharia law when that is the law that was revealed by the Koran? Again is the sharia law good since it displays God's character?

KingEbukasBlog:
You just admitted the existence of God(s)




You didn't show why the premise is faulty .



This is just the Euthyphro dilemma in disguise and it is a false dilemma because God own nature or character defines with is good .

Is the sharia law God? It displays God's character according to muslims. Is it good?

KingEbukasBlog:
This article is pointless since Vilenkin admitted that their research indicates that the universe had a beginning since it had a finite past.

Its simple logic , if something has a finite past then it has a beginning .

You aren't listening to what they are saying. It's not simple logic. Their theorm doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).

KingEbukasBlog:
Well there are top 5 Arguments I think

1.Cosmological Argument

2. Moral Argument

3. Teleological Argument

4. Ontological argument

5. Leibeinz Contingency Argument

No atheist have been able to refute these arguments . These make theism very logical .

Athiest have debunked these arguments. I on my own have debunked the moral argument. You claimed you'll get back to it and ran away from it since last year.

KingEbukasBlog:
That's not true .

Three physicists Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin proved that the universe had a finite past with the borde-guth-vilenkin theorem . This theory proves that spacetime cannot be extended to an infinite past but must reach a boundary at some time in finite past .

Allen Guth was asked in the debate between William Craig and Roy Carol if the universe had a begining and he clearly said he doesn't know. The universe might be eternal but no know knows. Wilam Craig as usual takes part of a study quote mines it, gives it his own meaning and claims that is what the author meant.

The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (pdf) shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe (as opposed to Dr. Craig’s “any universe”) will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past.

Dr. Craig seems to interpret this information as “the universe definitely began to exist” although that is a bit presumptuous. For example, this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).

Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:

f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

However, Craig’s main problem is that a beginning of the universe can still be described in scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true. The authors write,

What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.

This “quantum nucleation event” refers to a paper Vilenkin wrote in 1982 (pdf) which discusses the universe coming into being through quantum mechanics. Interestingly, many theists use Vilenkin’s paper as evidence that the universe came from “literally nothing” but Craig has already criticized this work.

Oddly, I’ve been unable to find any article of Craig’s (scholarly or otherwise) which actually quotes from the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper. Instead he almost exclusively quotes a paragraph from Vilenkin’s 2006 book Many Worlds in One (amazon) which discusses the 2003 paper:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (pg. 176).
Now that’s a pretty straight forward quote which at least seems to favor Craig’s argument, but on the very same page Vilenkin writes,

"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.
Vilenkin then concludes this statement by suggesting that cosmic origins could be described in “purely scientific terms” – a task which he attempts in the chapter which follows."

https://www.google.com.ng/amp/s/debunkingwlc./2010/07/14/borde-guth-vilenkin/amp/

felixomor:
I already explained what literal means above.

So u r settling for "metaphorical" or at best "non literal"
ie: Sight is not compulsory for evidence.

Right? I

Where did I mention sight anywhere?

felixomor:
It means the word means as it is written.

And as u wrote it, all your evidences need to be seen with the eyes .
U cant "point to" what u cant see.

No. When they say something is literal it means exactly.


I said when they say something isn't literal what does it mean?

felixomor:
So you mean physical "point to" ?

When they say something isn't literal what does it mean?

KingEbukasBlog:
Dalaman

If life on earth should be obliterated , how can we tell that intelligent life existed on earth ?

Based on evidence left behind that will indicate that intelligent life once existed. Like skeletons.

felixomor:
You refered to something u can "point to" if i am not mistaking?

Or is your "point to" metaphorical/literal?

"Point to" isn't literal.

KingEbukasBlog:
Let's address this logically , no need for all this .

So please answer these questions

1. If "A" causes or brings "B" into existence , is "A" the creator of "B" ?

If yes :

2. Can we deduce the properties of A from the observation of B ?

If no

Why ?

Please I need a perspicuous response .

A car produces fumes from its exhaust. But can we deduce the properties of a car from. The exhaust fumes?

I want direct evidence for God. Everything I know has direct evidence on one way or the other. Why not God. Why is there no direct incontrovertible and objective evidence for God?

felixomor:
Try to always answer directly, can u see wind?

You are making things up and running commentary on them. Who.mentioned sight any where? I said direct evidence. There is direct evidence for the wind.

4everGod:
Incidentally Plants are a proof that the Sun exists as without the Sun there would be no Photosynthesis which plants need to generate food and live. So when you see Plants thriving you know they have enjoyed abundant sunlight. So the Plants affirm to the existence of the Sun

The sun affirms to the existence of the sun. You have no point.

felixomor:
Wind exist.
Can u see it?

Who mentioned sight? There is direct evidence for the wind.

KingEbukasBlog:
That means you need evidence right ? What kind of evidence are you talking about here ?

Direct evidence. What is the evidence that the sun exist? What about the wind? What about other planets? I need direct evidence to show that God/Gods exist.

Pointing to the existence of other things as existence of God is just a copout. People don't point to plants as evidence for the existence of the sun. The point to the sun it self. Why is God hidden? In religious stories we hear God coming to interact with men in various ways directly. I need direct evidence not arguments based on ignorance which is what all the theist augments amounts to.

KingEbukasBlog:
Dalaman , your chance to finally prove that atheism is not illogical is here

I do not believe that any God exist. You defined God but failed to show how such a being exist. What can be asserted without evidence needs to be dismissed without evidence as well.

KingEbukasBlog:
More contributions please

KingEbukasBlog:
Please more contributions

You still dey here dey hawk your thread?

4everGod:
If all are on youtube then tell me how many episodes are they in total.

I am getting used to the way you tag people as liars without even running any research of your own. Shows you desperately wish to win even before you have started.

Am also used to the way you try to change the subject when caught telling lies. You lied that the episode you watched was on Bible contradictions. I asked what episode in the series is it and what parts of the biblical contradictions were discussed. I can easily watch it now on YouTube since it's available. Tell me the tittle.of the episode and I'll watch it..why is that a hard thing for you to do?

4everGod:
The episode shown last night was on Bible contradictions.

Why do you think i quickly invited PastorAIO and Liberadeus to tune in especially since we were also debating Bible contradictions last night?

When will you stop telling lies? Which biblical contradictions were touched upon in the episode you watched yesterday? Hope you know that all the episodes are on YouTube?

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!

I had already mentioned that there were episodes in my first post.

You only watched one episode and claimed that the people unanimously agreed that the bible contained no contradiction. That is a LIE. No such conclusion was made anywhere in the series. Stop making things up.

4everGod:
Oh what a way to carry out quick research! How many series is the documentary? Which one out of the series was shown by 12.30am today?

I know you love lying so as to discredit and you simply googled as i suggested

So how many series is in the documentary and which out of the series was aired last night.

I've watched 2 episodes(not complete though) in the series and I watched it 2 years ago when I wasn't in Nigeria. I just watched snippets on YouTube not long ago.

You just love making things up.

4everGod:
Lmao says Judge Dredd

Dignifying you with a response such as listing out the names of the archaeologists and historians would show i am being as Puerile as you are. I already mentioned the title of the documentary did i not? If you actually own a dstv decoder you would confirm this or a simple google search would bring it up on History channel 186.

I watched it yesterday so condescending to reel out names to you is foolishness especially since you seem to enjoy shouting liar up and down as always.

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.

Let me give a few examples of what the documentary dwelled on and tried to explain. A few verses were brought up and the historical and theological aspects were looked at by the scholars who tired to provide historical and theological explanations to the.

Example a verse in Leviticus was reviewed in one of the episode and some thoughts were provided by the scholars.

“Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech.” – Leviticus 18

Historical context on the God Molech was provided, and various theories and analysis were made on how the Jews differ from the people that worshipped Molech as God etc. They went on to give their own opinion as to why God told Abra ham to sacrifice his son. Each gave his/her opinion on that and why it differed from that of other Gods that also requestedfor child sacrifice( in my opinion most of them didn't do well in this segment ), they just regurgitated apologist drivel. One of then even laughed when asked. One of them said Abraham must have been horrified by God's demand for the gild sacrifice. The other said what ever God said must be obeyed because it was right.

Anther thing they touched on was the verse that says who ever cursed his parents must be stoned to death. They provided historical context to it. They said historically people believed that curses worked and they explained how the ancients take this things ery serious. They believe that anybody that curses his parents is destroying the family as such deserves to die.

They also touched on the anybody that blaspheme the name of the Lord needs to be stoned to death. Context was provided on how the ancients revered the name.of the Lord and as such any body that blasphemes deserved to die . One of them compared stining to deatg to a firing squad, in that no one knows which rock killed the person, that it is the whole tribe that is participating in meting out justice to the offender.

Nothing was said about the bible being non contradictory. It remains you own made up lies.

All the people(apart from.two muslims) interviewed in the series are christian apologist and not the neutral people you are trying to sell here. The apologist are already committed to the bible. Majority are Rabbis and Reverends.

felixomor:
There is no need throwing accusations u cant substantiate here.

Go open another thread for that, then mention.

Shalom.

He has lied on this thread and the lie will be thrashed here.

4everGod:
DoctorAlien and felixomor you know last night on another thread i had a similar debate with PastorAIO and LiberaDeus and they were also hammering on Bible contradictions and even though i trashed both of them combined

Somehow at about 12.30am while they were still haggling i switched my dstv over to channel 186 which is the history Channel (which is one of my favourite channels on dstv) and right there was an amazing documentary titled THE BIBLE RULES!

It was all about 12 highly qualified and esteemed Historians and archaeologists who were brought together to explore the historical reality lying behind all of the Bible's commands, delving into a their unknown origins and backstories and what people term as contradictions found in it.

These were modern historians who could speak the ancient languages dating back to 500BC and they spoke and gave verbatim interpretation right there on the program as the tore the Bible to shreds and put it back together and all 12 unanimously declared that the Bible held no contradiction and worse still 2 of these Historians were Muslim.

Arguing with these atheists who know little or nothing about Bible history, culture, traditions or indeed anything at all is tantamount to giving yourselves a migraine.

I urge them to go and first of all do deep research like these practical historians and archaeologists did yesterday in that 2hr documentary. Unless they wish to say they somehow know more than 12 actual world respected historians and archaeologists do from their face value knowledge of the scriptures.

That documentary was a ground breaking documentary which DSTV had been announcing since the 5th of December so everyone would be on it and i was opportune d to be on when they aired it and i was deeply blessed seeing men prove the scriptures are what they are. Divine, inspired and absolutely correct!

Most of what 4everGod wrote here are sugar coated lies. You will never stop telling lies even if you are going to be killed. Just tell us the name of any of the alleged historians and archaeologists that said there is no contradictioninside the bible.

alchemist13:
Well, then we agree on one contradiction. Because according to Matthew, Mary (another Mary) met an angelic being who apparently convinced both women of Jesus' resurrection. That is the reason for the women departing the tomb.

Whereas in John, the same Mary flees the tomb as soon as she sees that the stone has been rolled away.

Luke mentioned the women by name and at no time did he suggest that any of them left the scene. We have NO reason what so ever to beleive he wasn't referring to all the ladies he mentioned at the begining throughout his narrative.

alchemist13:
John 20:18
Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”—and that he had said these things to her.

Matthew 28:8
So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

To be sure neither passages mention eleven disciples but that will be rather uncharacteristically pedantic. There is absolutely no reason to assume these passages do not refer to the eleven.

Luke mentions the 11. But according to the gospel his apologist formed, Peter and John were in Jerusalem while the others where in Bethany.

DoctorAlien:
Isn't it funny that when the events of the resurrection as reported by the evangelists are harmonized perfectly, the only thing you have to say is "where is that written?"?

You're full.

Full of ignorance. Please, have you any more sensible thing to say?

Harmonized perfectly with new inventions abi? Harmonized with maybes, probably, assuming, of my suppositions are correct, and other such nonsense. Anybody can harmonize anything with such stuffs. You are empty my friend.

Where is any of the assumptions, maybes and if am correct written in the story? Anybody can make things up and hide them with probably, maybes and assumptions.

DoctorAlien:
[s][/s]

If you have nothing sensible to say, keep quiet. You look smarter like that.

At least he has shown more sense than you that just agrees with the made up lies of another apologist that clearly makes things up to explain absurdity away. You refuse to touch the point he made instead you are tring to shade him with subliminal insults.