₦airaland Forum

Billyonaire:
No.

Confucian?

Billyonaire:
God is not dead, because it never existed.

Are you a scientologist?

Anas09:
Hmmmmmm, I ve been reading and expecting to hear something I have not heard before. My question has always been, if humans evovled from apes, how long does it take for an ape to change to human? And why r there still Apes and humans living side by side? And since we r still evolving, why hasn't any man evovled to something else yet? Or is man the finale stage of evolution? Again, we are asked to prove that there's god, how can u prove there's no god?

Good question....humans did not evolve from the apes we see today...evidence from genetics...paleontology,biochemistry and many more suggests humans and current apes share a common ancestor 6 million years ago of which homo sapiens were derived....infact before this waa known....carl linnaeus(father of taxonomy) placed humans under the homonoideae family and prompted people to further research why man was morphologically and anatomically similar to other primates....as taxonomy grew on more knowledge and genetics was formulated it was revealed that humans share a large percentage of dna among chimps and less with all life on earth...if you want to understand this further I can cite you to educative papers and video tutorials...

Note: Carl linnaeus lived before evolution was proposed and was the christian whom first placed humans alongside other primates...evidence vindicated his findings... and people today feel offended at the mere mention of being related to any other animal,some even citing it to slavery as though it meant that when it doesn't

cloudstar:
davien



Science is a general subject my friend and not everything is self-correcting. Scientists live in the uncertain and it's that uncertainty that encourages scientist to explore.

Despite the elementary definition you have of science you still don't get it....

It's good you can spell ignorance - you seem to be familiar with it..

It's sad you don't get simple tautology, what science is and the difference between a "primordial ripple" and a "primordial universe"....your lack of coherent phrasing is also a deep concern

Cha- why do you insist on displaying your ignorance. These were your words: Nothing in science....is taken as "true". Instead of you to admit you over-spoke; you are here trying to play semantics with your words. If the 1st example I gave is not true, can you please falsify it. Perhaps you are the only human that doesn't have a brain since that might not be a truth statement according to your science. You are pitiful man

lol! Typical butturt theist.....You don't even know the difference between saying something is "not true" compared to "not known if it is/was always true"....we use those axioms of science to presuppose natural laws for past and future events....under that guideline we do not know and we cannot know if the reality we experience is real....that is why every theory is subject to revision and the fact that a theory works does not make it true.....we look for predictive power in scientific theories and how well they can account for existing data..
Science works by building a different set of models to account for a phenomena and passes them through the scientific method....those that fail are either modified or discarded,depending on the data collected..

Do you know the difference between making a truth statement and been uncertain? I am aware that science claims uncertainty but your statement that nothing is science is true is incorrect. I don't understand why you insist on playing pretend

#facepalm I'm always blown away by your stupidity.....if you aren't certain,can you say definitively if it is true?..or say it's likely true?

I can't speak of all religions. Christianity doesn't claim to know all the answers. It bothers on theology and in case you don't know, theology is the queen of the sciences. It provides "beyond reasonable doubt" proof to me. So, please cross-check your references and information again.

lol...theology queen of sciences?! perhaps you don't know that it's own view of reality is much less capable of predicting anything about the natural world..in hindu mythology the earth is a flat disk perched on a turtles back..

Thanks

Atleast you admitted your folly here...

Coming from someone who thinks humans having brains is not true in science

Coming from someone who doesn't realise that the philosophy of science says nothing about you(nor any of your parts) really existing due to a starting point(realism)...
Lets use epistemology for instance....we may use epistemology to infer a deductive argument to prove something and as inductive reasoning is stating something being likely or not given certain assumptions and since science is a way to formulate your assumptions, observe, and infer from your assumptions what is likely,if you assume there is a reality and it is knowable through observation that is at least partly reliable, you can actually infer quite a lot of things. A lot of these findings are well documented and easy to verify. I cannot think that there are better ways to reason, especially if you want to understand what we call reality as good as possible,than science and epistemology...
Nothing can prove something definitely (including this statement)... so accept it and go with the amount of certainty that can be given (through the methods of your choice, but I recommend the rational scientific way).

Science use of nothing in other areas is quite clear as compared to Lawrence Krauss term of "nothing" when he refers to the cosmos. You seem insisting on Krauss definition of what nothing means. What doesn't nothing mean in mathematics?

Science and mathematic require terminolgy to be defined or quantified(if possible both)so as to represent data....in mathematic's "nothing" can be defined as "0"
You can see that "nothing" in mathematics is definitive and not ambiguous..and from that definitive term alone we can express many things with "nothin" I.e 10,100,1000 etc
And I am not insisting on krauss definition' as much as citing it as to why we say the universe "emerged from nothing" in respect to what "nothing" has been demonstrated to always be something

So, Neil Degrasse Tyson definition of nothing exceeds or replaces Krauss definition of nothing in the same video abi or any of the other scientists? Dude, do you see how stupid that statement sounds! It's what I have been saying from jump-start. Nothing means something to these folks - they can't prove it but somehow it does.

You're definitely butturt That statement is stup.id because you made it....you seem to misunderstand citations too.. I cited him because of that statement...the closer we get to the definition of "nothing" the more we realise its actually something..

For example, it's like asking what is darkness? It's the same thing you are doing here - you are trying to define nothing as something. It's similar as saying, I don't know what it is but it could be something

Darkness can be expressed in many ways I.e a lack of information cast by a 3D object(in the case of shadows) in realtime or a lack of perceivable light from a light source

If you took time to read what I posted, you will see that I wasn't referring to the multi-verse. But you assumed I am referring to the multi-verse. I take God beg you, read it again and tell me how you came to the conclusion I was talking about the multi-verse?

Here's a simplified version of why you were still talking about the mutiverse that even you should understand...Bicep2 is evidence of primordial ripples....primordial ripples are gravitational waves....gravitational waves are evidence of neighboring universes....
So what exactly do you expect me to think when you kept talking about the "multverse theory" when you've mistaken "primordial ripples" for "primordial universes"

Who said it wasn't. You are the one claiming a position of not been objective

lol! typical theist,when you back them to a corner they begin to pretend and accuse you of what they're doing...
How am i not objective as compared to this your comment below that screams subjectivity.

theology is the queen of the sciences.

chiedu7:
If God came from something, that thing is God.

The final source of all creation is God

And how do you know that?

padeolu:
The methane effect is actually more deadly than other GHGs.

Its easy to argue on either side of the divide (skepticals and Pros). For so long, we were made to believe fanatically that the earth was flat. It took a logical mind, further research and skepticism to arrive at what we have today. Same logic should be applied to Climate Change, science is not based on consensus, rather nullifying facts. Of which the data on anthropogenic climate change has been proven several times to be doctored and the model, compromised.

Can you cite me to a paper or study that proves this?

herald9:
I know I know... The eye is used to explain how a camera works...So equating the universe and nature to some machine guided by a fixed law is to help understand how it works too...
From there, an element of design was discovered inwhich you people are trying to push to the back.

Yup!...it's a big conspiracy to stop people from finding out an idea that has 0 evidence

Since you've brought up this camera issue...I want to ask...If the eye could cause so much inspiration,that an idea came forth ,which later gave birth to a design(camera)... Do you still think the eye is just a minor organ which came to be by chance?

You want to appear as a deist but you clearly stink of theism..
where is the logical connection for your "it inspires x,so how can it come by chance?"(you'd have to put a theist hat on) ...you have to give us how you deduced it coming alternatively...
And the fact that an eye inspired an invention says nothing about the origin of the eye....if sand dunes inspires architects to construct a building reminiscent of sand dunes does that suddenly disprove what we know about them?

'His' works testifies of his existence

"his works" that term right there is pure theism(right down to the gender ) and it's use is to label things what you feel it to be... i.e flower looks pretty, therefore "god did it"...lions kill people,"sin/the devil had a hand in it...

Just imagine you were cleaning your room...you now picked a moth-eaten book with the back gone so that you can't see the author's name... Does it mean the author doesn't/didn't exist?

This is your revised version of the watchmaker analogy and it is flawed for the same reason the original is....I don't have to presuppose anything about a nameless book because by definition a book is for writing and you don't need faith to believe that now do you?....ironically you use faith to believe a "creator" exists but we don't use that to know writers exist..lol

…


I'll check your thread.

It was just a citation to my comment there...

padeolu:
Yes I do. The answer to the possible cause of climate change is there in the video, 4:48 to 4:55. That's more scientific and logical.

Man can't possibly be the cause, if we have to blame it on someone/something, let's put the blame on cows, their farts have higher green house impact.

lol....cows? I know methane is also a green house gas but common...haven't we been responsible for most of the current cattle breeds?...herego more cow droppings=more methane emissions....

Nothing but fan mail....

timonski:
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/matter/ airhead

This is what I keep trying to tell people... "nothing" as commonly understood is non-existent..or atleast we haven't found a case where anything is absolutely "nothing"

padeolu:
they won't be needing it. The fossil fuels became important to us because it exist. If we hadn't discovered it (or it wasn't available), we would have found an alternative way.

Do you have any comment on this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

herald9:
The basis for Deism stemmed from the success of sir Isaac Newton in explaining
terrestrial mechanics which led to the development of the idea that nature and the universe could be "thought of" as a great machine, operating according to fixed laws.The idea of the world as a machine immediately
suggested the idea of design.And design doesn't just happen... It requires a designer.

It's a great big equivocation fallacy....the fact that something can be thought of as another does not magically turn it into what it is thought of..
The fact that an eye is reminiscent of a camera does not make the eye a camera....they are two separate entities and until one can provide a case as to how the universe ought to be "undesigned" they have no case... an example is you should know what "right" is before calling things "left"..

So that's how we came about the idea of a Creator, which only varies with that of a theist because we believe the Creator doesn't interfere in the mechanics of the universe...

I know the gist of deism...just answer the question....how is a "creator" deduced if one can't differentiate it ever being there to begin with if no trace can be found of it's existence and it can't be separated from natural processes?

From further studying, I've come to discover the shortcomings of Deism, Cause I couldn't see why a God would create a universe he can't participate in...

True,although i see why it is mostly preferred among academics

Or did he create the universe to watch it as fish in the fishbowl?

Many rich ideas stem from deism...for instance...
What would seem to us as a deistic entity might in fact have a purpose for the universe...albeit not for our existence...but the creation of living entities like us may have been an inescapable by-product of the universe creation'...
And for all we know a deistic entity might in fact be using the universe for study of it's own environment...not by interaction of the universe but through observation...
The problem is that all those examples of a deistic entity have as much the same evidence,0...

And since I cannot come in terms with the explanation from Atheism and the beliefs of the Theist....I would love to quote Blaize Pascal who posited that
there is more to be gained from wagering on
the existence of God than from atheism, and
that a rational person should live as though
God exists, even though the truth of the
matter cannot actually be known.

cc: Goosebaba

Pascal's wager is about theism not deism(although it expresses it a bit remotely) and so it is not applicable to defend your deism nor is it true even of itself because belief is for one not a choice...you genuinely have to be convinced and again you stand to lose alot of things in theism best summarized under my post here https://www.nairaland.com/1930863/letter-atheists-pics#26819243
and even still deism has a large score who don't subscribe to a "mandatory belief" but still hold the view plausible...

herald9 if nothing can be said about the belief in the "creator" that you believe to have started the universe,nor can it be discerned from natural processes...then what is the difference between it being non-existent?
....or is it the belief that makes it existent?

cloudstar:
davien



Have it your way - I won't argue with you anymore

Never argued with you...you just misunderstand everything...

Good - so basically the science that led to confirming the universe was eternal is the same science suggesting that the universe popped out of nothing? In your case - nothing means something

science is a self-correcting process and the "nothing" I refer to is explicable to whom defines it and what it's used for...

It is at this point that I realize you just want to talk because you have a mouth.

A mouth to stop willful ignorance...

You have basically said that a bunch of "intellectuals" can claim any nonsense as scientific and put the burden on others to disprove it. For your information, there are absolute proven in science, in other words, there are truths in science. So, for you to suggest otherwise, I am inclined to question your sanity. Examples for absolutes or true science

1. The moon rotates around the earth and the earth around the sun - perhaps you can try and falsify that
2. The gross anatomy of humans is well-established and beyond dispute. Normal humans have two hands, two feet, two eyes, two ears, and one nose. They also have brains, lungs, kidneys, livers, and stomachs.
3. Whereas certain diseases are caused by viruses, some others are caused by bacteria.
4. Under standard conditions water freezes at 0 Celsius and evaporates at 100 Celsius

I can go on an on but will leave you to falsify the above since they are not taken as true in science

wow!....just wow! lol!
So you actually thought science gives "truths".....science is based on areas of philosophy like empiricism,realism,cartesian philosophy etcetera and under those axioms we can never know for certain if the observation you gave of #1 was/is always true...for all you know it began to occur that way when it was first viewed...the same goes for all your examples...
This is the reason why no scientist will say "science has all the answers" nor that "it's proven beyond reasonable doubt" otherwise it becomes a dogmatic religion...because of the fact that we can't really know anything to be true ..
So if you're wondering why we use science if we can't really know anything for certain it's because it's pragmatic and that is what I personally love about science..we don't have all the answers nor claim to,like religion...

My mistake, the primordial ripples in spacetime is also used to support the multi-verse view.

Note,"primordial ripples" is not the same thing as "primordial universe"...the former is of ancient gravitational waves propagated by the big bang and the latter is the universe at pre-big bang..

I understand there can be different proofs. I am not referring to proof such as "beyond reasonable doubt". I am referring to scientific proof. An observable, repeatable processes, that can be tested an replicated.

of what exactly?..because I'm yet to see you grasp or even discuss in an educated manner..

Why should nothing as used in Lawrence Krauss physics when explaining the universe be different from the nothing used in normal science?

Wrong again! First there is no dichotomy between lawrence Krauss' term of "nothing" and it's use...
Science works with terms that can be defined or numerically given for precision and to avoid ambiguity...."nothing" as commonly understood cannot be quantified let alone demonstrated to have been the state of the universe

Does Krauss get to change the meaning of nothing to support his argument? For example, the null set is empty - it contains nothing - no bdy argues that empty means there is something in the set only that we are not seeing it? The laws of physics are the same whether it's here on earth or whether it's the same in the cosmos. The variables may be different but they are the same.

Read the above.

Scientist have different meaning of what "nothing" means to them . You want to have fun laughing, here you go:

http://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html

I have the video of the debate...it was really intriguing for some of the greatest minds to be discussing such a topic,anyway if you had read you're own article...you'd have noted this comment by neil degrasse tyson " Ultimately, the definition of nothing may just be an ever-moving target,
shifting with every scientific revolution as new insights show us what
we thought was nothing is really something."
"Nothing" (as commonly understood) has not been established as the actual fate of anything...

Did you consider BICEP2’s results in that they predict that the Universe would have received large jolts during the cosmic inflation phase, which would have pushed it into the other valley of the Higgs field within a fraction of a second. And that would have collapsed the entire nascent Universe in a Big Crunch. It’s possible that BICEP2’s findings were actually caused by similar polarisation effects that can be generated by nearby dust in our own galaxy, a point that the researchers conceded was possible in their study. You ignored that and you are waiting for another Theory abi?

Dimwit you are still referring to your straw man (multi-verse theory) haven't you read any of my comments?
I mean if simple tautology confuses you from the beginning,then you get confused by terminology (thinking primordial ripples equate to a primordial universe) and then not understanding the axioms of science, then I really don't think you have any business discussing any of this...you'll just end up being called out on your "knowledge"...

Stop playing this scientific subjectivity crap. You are giving yourself an escape clause. I gave you examples above where we have scientific absolutes i.e. truths. Whether you decide to hold it or not is irrelevant.

Science is objective if you fail to grasp this there's nothing I can do..

I didn't deny that I made a mistake in categorizing what you were referring to as the Multiverse Theory.

Then why are you still using the straw man if you don't want to be called a troll?

truthman2012:
No. The word 'psychic' has to do with occulticism, the congregation of satanists. I'm a child of God.

which means?

truthman2012:
Huum! May God in his mercies restore you. Amen.

I have many testimonies using the same word you have rejected.

You'll find a "testimony" in anything(whether good or bad) because you believe everything is one...

1st Thessalonians 5:18
In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus
concerning you.
So it doesn't surprise me if you have a "testimony" for any situation...

truthman2012:
I think so myself.

Should we not all stand against atrocities committed by these jihadists. So, we should praise them, abi?

Did Jesus praise the pharisees and saducees by saying 'woe' unto them? What did they do compared to muslims?

Your criticisims of Christian faith these days show you are no more part of us. From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

I commend intellectual honesty whenever I see it...christian,muslim,hindu,atheist etc...frosbel has been intellectually honest enough to review(albeit to myself not entirely)his worldview and has come across profound discoveries..
A common christian would think an atheist like me is just "angry at god" because of a sad event or just rebelling or "possessed" or just came across a website making a case against a belief and I fell for it...
Truth is I was a staunch christian.. I had even decided to become a pastor and so I decided to go study "the word" historically....and it's origin and it's canon...what I found was nothing the common preacher was preaching behind the altar but the opposite....so it was either to be intellectually honest about it or find a way to convince myself no matter what.

truthman2012:
Whether your dreams will come true or not depends on the type of spirit that dwells inside of you. Solomon, Joseph and many others dreamt and they came true. God do send messages to people in dream. If you don't have God, your dream may be seeing chicken, rats, snake etc

All the people you mentioned above and those dreams are still claimed in the bible so how does that make it true if you're using the bible to confirm itself?

UyiIredia:
It's the sincerity of the heart that matters not the length of the prayer.

so has no one prayed sincerely for cancer to be cured worldwide?

truthman2012:
Did you think of chicken before you slept? Maybe you keep poultery.

People dream of future events and they come true.

So? If i dream about anything and it comes true...does that automatically mean anything I dream about is true, even unicorns?

cloudstar:
He is expressing the multi-verse view. It's a view that has the scientific community is divided on. The view doesn't provide any factual and observable evidence - it's a theory that is why he can't give you a straight answer. He is basically relaying what his "experts" express.

Another dimwit confused by simple tautology,at what point did I remotely address the "multi-verse theory"...
If you don't get something,ask before giving out your straw man...

cloudstar:
davien



No Bros - I do!

No, you still don't...

It was science that claimed our universe was eternal decades ago, wasn't it;

Yes it was

was that theory true even though it was the view held by science?

Nothing in science....is taken as "true",all we have is an approximation of knowledge based on what facts lead to....
The universe was considered eternal based on the acquired knowledge until more knowledge led to a different view

My point is it's exactly what it is - a theory. It's when we have hard empirical evidence that we can test and verify that things begin to make sense. The theory you have is just another theory like the multi-universe.

No it is not..if you had read all the few sources I pointed out instead of concluding on what I was saying you might have understood me....
in fact the video I linked up is of a short explanation of what inflation corrected in the big bang theory inwhich alan guth was interviewed and he explained how the primordial universe was before the big bang and what his postulates led to..
And before-inflation is still referred to as "primordial universe" it's inter-changeable but sadly you thought I was referring to the "multiverse theory" I guess religion does reta.rds minds

Did you or did you not ask for the definition of nothing. I don't understand how the same definition that applies to physics or mathematics as nothing all of a sudden becomes irrelevant when we are discussing the cosmos . That is the length "intellectuals" will go to prove stupidit.y

Some terminology differs especially when given to lay men like yourself...."proof" for example is commonly understood differently to common folk when compared to how it is regarded in science as a deductive argument for a statement mathematically speaking...
At no point in time was it established that a common understanding of "nothing" was the state of everything...and when physicists say lawrence Krauss and stephen hawkin relay the universe emerging from "nothing" they define it differently...i will provide a video of lawrence krauss explaining this personally below...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs

That is your problem. You have given your life over to "experts" without any kind of hard evidence.

How many people do I have to explain this to over and over again....i don't have to believe anything for it to be true nor have to support any theory for it to be legitimate....scientific theories are passed through the scientific method and are set as the single consistent model of understanding when it meets it's predictions to a substantial amount and to which no other theory best accounts for....
Take for example the the theory of gravity, did it make predictions-yes, did it account for everything-no, it couldn't account for mercury's orbit...but until that discovery it had made sufficient predictions to be relevant...and that flaw was discovered as always through the scientific method and a new theory(relativity) accounted for it...

If Hawkins or Krauss came out tomorrow and said, oops - we were uncertain about our hypothesis regarding the beginning of the Big Bang or what state the universe was in before the Big Bang - what then? Your view will automatically change? Didn't Einstein hold the same view that our universe was eternal until Hubble disproved his theory by providing factual evidence that could be observed?

I don't hold any views on a scientific consensus, how are you failing to get that....science is the best method as far as we can tell for understanding the world we live in...that is demonstrable by its advent.
If the big bang will ever be shown false it would have to be at the methids used to deduce it...not misused elementary notions you and your elk keep posing..

Scientist will tell you that the theory makes sense and tell you why it makes sense but no one has observed any other universe apart from ours. Here is what Princeton University theoretical physicist Paul Steinhardt had to say: "The multiverse functions here as an all-purpose excuse for not being able to explain anything about particle physics"

Mathematician Peter Woit at Columbia University wrote in a blog post responding to BICEP2 reactions. "I consider such a view to be ‘giving up’ on finding a true scientific explanation,"

Go and read research on the same issue about with re-own professors like John Lennox and ask them why they don't hold the same view as Hawkins or Krauss

Nice straw man....it would be expected of you when to simply understand simple tautology is a problem...
Again your jargon above would have made sense if I was referring to the "multiverse theory"

The same thing I am talking about. Bros - don't jump on the band wagon until factual proof has been given. You and I are seeing the same evidence but arriving at different conclusions. You need to be objective - let all the facts come out before you conclude what happened. Don't let your atheism stand in the way. Good luck

#facepalm it is either you're really a huge dimwit or a troll....when did I tell you that I accept the "multiverse theory"?
Intellectual dishonesty is what I can't stand....and you are simply full of it...

frosbel:
Yes, by the blind followers and supporters of churchanity -

it's hard to find intellectually honest christians these days.

frosbel:
I had to write this email due to the coarse, abusive and outright rude comments directed at Muslims as a whole by the followers of Christ.

Don't get me wrong, I am not innocent and used to be part of this problem in the past, but hear me out first.

There is a tendency to lump All Muslims together when any act of terror is committed like the one currently ongoing in Paris. Christians immediately jump on the bandwagon of cursing, abusing and blaming all Muslims in some of the most derogatory, un-Christlike and coarse ways. I have often heard comments like ' let all northerners die' or ' kill all Muslims' or 'deport all Muslims' or ' let them suffer for eternity' or 'they are illiterates' or 'torture them ' etc.

Instead of working together with our Muslim country men on a secular level to move this nation forward and prove our love for God by treating each other with respect and dignity, we isolate them using religion as an excuse even at the expense of good governance, peace and prosperity.

Buhari is another case where so called followers of Christ even lie and promote slander about a supposed religious ploy to turn Nigerian intro a Sharia pariah nation despite evidence to the contrary. By this act alone we sacrifice potential good governance for religious bigotry and hate.

I am against Islamic terrorism 100% and we should and must work together to root out the evil amongst us , the Muslim communities should cooperate even more with the security services to ensure these wicked people do not gain a foothold in their communities, schools and minds. So far we see this happening with comments from the Sultan of Sokoto and Emir of Kano but we need more publicity of these good acts.

However, Christians should start living and acting like the Christ they profess to follow. If Christ followers who are called to be the light act like people living in darkness , how can the world see the light ( love ) of God and be drawn to it ?? It is very unfortunate that the same ones who claim to be in the light are the first to act like the devil when dealing with their fellow man, this ought not to be so.

Muslims are first and fore mostly Human Beings and we are admonished to follow peace with All MEN not a few. To support or encourage violence against any religion, tribe or people is contrary to the gospel of God.

We are also very good at hiding our own atrocities, after all , the wars all over the middle east that have decimated the Arab communities were widely support by so called evangelicals in the USA and western world and in come cases Nigeria. We choose to ignore serious cases of abuse in our churches , ritual killings , mind control and terrorism in the name of eternal torment , yet we have the gall to call others violent and curse them to this so called hell.

Brethren, let us act like Christ in word and deed, stop playing pretend, and tagging yourself with the name of Christ only when it concerns money, marriage and getting things from God , but when it comes to dealing with our Muslim country men we act like the devil.

Don't be deceived, any heart filled with hate and that participates in or encourages murder is not of God.

Think about it.

you've already been labelled a backslider though

ProphetUdeme:
Read this amazing true life story of a young american girl that was raised by a christian parents but later backslidded and died from over dose drugs and found herself standing before God in judgement and being condemned to hell but unfortunately was given a second chance.

She says its a command from God that all christians must bear fruit, read on itss very edifying and full of truth. God bless u as u do.
http://www.divinerevelations.info/documents/jennifer_perez/hell_is_real_i_went_there_jennifer_perez.htm

youtube -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSoAdRt05Y0

yeah,and a christian boy also allegedly saw "allah" and it's "real" too..

slyfox5555:
davien



I think I understand where you are coming from now. You hold one of the many numerous theories about what happened before the Big Bang. I was asking for scientific claims that the entire scientific community agree on but so far what you are offering is a theory - my mistake; I misunderstood.

BICEP2 team observed what may be evidence of inflation in the early Universe. Like any claim of this gravity, the result is hotly debated. If the idea of inflation is correct, it is possible that our universe is part of a much larger multi-verse (Universe popping up everywhere). And the most popular form would produce a kind of eternal inflation, where universes are springing up all the time. Ours would just happen to be one of them.

This reminds me of the scientific community claim that our universe existed eternally, only to swallow that claim when it was discovered that our universe is constantly expanding.

You don't get it...

When anyone doesn't conform to your way of thinking - they are labelled uneducated. Imagine the people that claimed that our universe had a beginning decades ago - they were laughed at, called uneducated and were irrational.

What your claiming would have been true if I had an ideology that I was giving but I didn't give you an ideology so its a little too soon to throw accusations of bigotry when all I have you were scientific theories..

Bros, nothing means the absence of anything and/or everything. Taking our universe as an example, it means no matter, no radiation, no energy, no spatial curvature; we can imagine existing in completely empty, void space. Whether you decide to call that something, na your wahala be that. . The concept is very simple, you can decide to confuse yourself and throw all kinds of meaning to it but the premise is simple.

And its benalvino2 all over again.....can you give me a time when the universe had your definition of nothing that the scientific community agrees on....
Go grab a book was a good advice for you but you still swim in your self perceived "intelligence."...

I don't make any claim to know the uncertain. What we know said our universe had a beginning. You are are the one trying to explain what nothing means

Here lies the epitome of your own folly.....you have a view that everyone uses the same definition to characterize a phenomenon....when Stephen hawkin or Laurence krauss is talking about the universe emerging from nothing....they aren't using the term the same way common folk like you and me understand it to be.....if you did your research that wouldn't be a problem for you....atall..

Really! - the same cocky attitude atheist have. Let me celebrate in my uncertainty; I don't claim to know everything but I know much about our universe to know that it had a beginning, it wasn't eternal

#facepalm... I guess comprehension skills have dropped in nigeria..... my "cocky attitude" was for correcting you and thus has nothing to do with my atheism.....nice straw man though.

RikoduoSennin:
Well then, It depends on who you put faith ob, God or your Senses. God does not lie but our senses do- that's why skilled illutionist strive.

You'll still have to depend on your senses to believe god doesn't lie by reading the bible and having a subjective presupposition about it being true...
And are you a creationist?

herald9:
Well, I'm not in the mood to insult now....continue...it's your profession.

I used the word 'intelligent ' because you people made it look so...

You know how complex the universe is and the living things within... it's only an intelligent being that is capable of maneuvering whether matter or whatever it is to bring them into existence...
So if you say some random exploding particles caused it...then those particles must really be intelligent.

Smh....

herald9:
You keep driving your points with insults...is this how atheists behave?

Proof I'm a dimwit by answering those questions I forwarded to you...

I can't see why it's easy to believe in an intelligent atomic particles than to believe in an intelligent unknown Creator

Before,I used to try to communicate without insults,but when someone is behaving like a shi.tty dimwit...I just have to call them out on it....
And the bolded gives an airtight case...what atheist believes any of that,dimwit..
Is this the height religion has re.tard.ed you to?