wiegraf:

actually, I think thou art the one without comprehendeth~~

I've already made allowances for most of these. I do state that physical constants, etc, may differ, no?

natural laws though, once established ie, and more pertinently, again, logical laws, do not. you are even attempting to use these logical laws to state your case, no?

Once established being key - who established them? In my view God did therefore God does not have to be subject to such laws.

god is responsible for all our natural laws, therefore it follows that it need not be bound by our laws, no? eg a programmer could write a program in which the universe is 2d, that does not necessarily mean the programmer lives in a 2d universe as well. you're using simple logic to state your case, no?

goot, I'm using same simple logic to point out another simple fact; things come into being.

soooo, why is your god exempt again?

Your logic is different from mine - my view is that created things come into being, therefore excludes God by definition.

as for the very relevant 1+1=2, all such logic and abstract concepts exist by default, obviously. do they manifest without matter/energy though? no. that would be juju. juju does not exist. 'nothing', in a sense, does not exist.

I could also say 1+1 has existed through eternity. but, like I've already stated, eternity is likely a closed loop with a definite starting point; the big bang. there would likely be a definite end as well, but I'll avoid nitty gritty

[quote]
and saying god is exempt from being part of everything looks to be simply bad logic from my lofty perch. physical, natural laws would apply to everything that manifests, even if not our exact laws. logical laws would apply to everything, gods including. a programmer cannot change the fact that 1+1=2

That's your prerogative - whenever everything is mentioned, I regard that as every created thing, from which God is, of course, exempt.

A programmer didn't create 1+1 = 2 and came to be after the logic of 1+1 came into being, so he can hardly change what preceded him.

I haven't even argued that God is exempt from all 'natural laws' (however you may define that) - all I have said is that God did not come to be as the very attribute of God is the self-existent, eternal one with no end nor beginning.

musKeeto: Debosky, long time.. una don tiff our welbeck

How we for do now? Who can rely on SirNoGoal for a whole season?

It's the same reason people are concerned about a bunch of people blowing up places so they can make heaven and be rewarded with virgins. If these religions weren't focused so much on proselytizing and winning more souls to their fold(which they do mostly through the fear of hell and armageddon), I wouldn't be so much concerned.

Fair enough - if you were discussing human actions then that's a different thing - last thing I checked God wasn't blowing up places it was people.

A lot of believers embark on soul winning with really honest motives. Being honest about a cause doesn't make the cause true or real. These soulwinners believe they're doing 'sinners' a favor by saving them from eternal damnation. There are also a few Christians on this board who have voiced their non-belief in hell.

I have no issues with this, but then again this isn't related to fairness or otherwise of the said God.

So my opinions do not count in the grand scheme of things?

Not really, except when they come to yourself. If you don't believe in a God, why care whether the God is fair or not? It's like me getting angry the tooth fairy will give someone $5 in America for a tooth but only 5 naira for me in Nigeria. Is that reasonable?

wiegraf:
If the self aware mobile phone knew of entropy, or assuming a biological lifeform as the creator, the simple fact that biological lifeforms tend to die way before entropy kicks in, there would be nothing wrong with its asking its manufacturer when will it die. When was it born or created? etc etc. That would indeed be a very logical thing to do.

Again you miss the point - the analogy is that the 'law' obsolescence after 3 years of a mobile phone does not apply to its manufacturer. A battery typically loses the ability to recharge after 3 years, but the human heart does not stop working in such a short period i.e. different 'rules' or 'laws' apply. Yes when entropy is considered the human heart will also eventually wear out, but that duration is well beyond the time frame applicable to the mobile phone that to all intents and purposes is a different 'law'.

The manufacturer can not just wave away natural laws and more pertinently, simple logical ones. Though, of course, if you can show how or even why, I'm all ears.

That was never the point - the point was to highlight that a 'law' (e.g. obsolescence after 3 years) does not necessarily applicable to both.

Special exempt status without justification is exactly that; special pleading.
For instance, it cannot have been eternal. Nothing has been shown to be eternal and it will likely remain that way. Infinities have no place in the natural world as they simply do not compute. For instance, when would God have say, had it's first thought? Do you appreciate how universal that is, how that problem exists regardless of physical constants or laws, eg entropy, etc? (Actually, entropy would likely exist in one form or the other in any conceivable universe, but that's another story).
Space, time etc are likely some form of closed loops, but of course that remains to be verified (assuming it's possible to do so ie, some things may be impossible to confirm)

Well I've given you justification - God existed prior to the said laws coming into existence. If you don't accept that God precedes the existence of those laws that's your prerogative.

Btw, did God exist before 1 + 1 = 2? God couldn't have done that as well, no?

When did 1+1 = 2 come into existence?

Insisting God is beyond such laws, etc is exactly that; special pleading
Note on the op, even if it is stating the obvious, he may have been focusing solely on evolution though he did not elaborate, in which case your immediate argument may hold sway under certain (special) conditions. Ultimately though, as I hope to show, even in those conditions you aren't exactly home free. Step back and look at the broader picture and you notice glaring problems that are simply being relegated constantly. I doubt you accept even those conditions anyways.

There's no special pleading at all - let's get back to where this started from - If God has always existed and 'everything' has to come to being, then clearly 'everything' here refers excludes God. If you still insist it's special pleading then so be it.

To learn from - not to repeat/copy senselessly.

The Israelites spent 40 years in the wilderness therefore because they did it I must go and spend 40 years in the wilderness so I can 'learn from it'.

If you follow the 'principle' of Malachi (doing what the law commands) but ignore the 'principle' of wave and heave offering, you have broken all the 'principles'. Geddit?

James 2:10 For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God's laws.

Get it into your head.

edi287: Rumors are going round that Gazidis signed Welbeck without Wengers' approval. I'm also hearing the board are not happy that we couldn't bring in a DM and a cb. We lost out on manolas due to Wenger's dithering. Kind of explains why wenger hasn't said anything about Welbeck's signing. But i also kind of find it hard to believe since Wenger sent a text to comolli on bein sports confirming the welbeck deal was a permanent one rather than a loan...

How many ridiculous rumours can you pack into one post? First Gaz signed a player without Wegner's approval, then a statement that we lost Manolas due to 'Wenger's dithering' (like you were there in the negotiation room), and then to top it all off you have access to Wenger/Comolli's text messages?

I know it's dull and boring without footie on at the moment, but faraburukubale.

wiegraf:
and that owner is subject to laws, laws he cannot overcome. he cannot just, for instance, declare he produces garri when clearly he's making indomie.

Stay on subject - the aim of the analogy is to point out that there is no special pleading going on per se - mobile phones that lose functionality after say 3 years cannot ask their manufacturer 'why don't you become obsolete every 3 years?'

there's no magic about it. there are natural laws. there are also logical, objective laws. 1 + 1 cannot be anything other 2. label it how ever one may want, it is still '2'

one of these laws is that things come into being. steps are followed. so why is god exempt? just because?

God is exempt because God was already in existence before the law itself came into being.

wiegraf:

the point of this is to confront this. why the special pleading? why is your god exempt from natural laws?

all things need to come to be, but your god just skipped a couple of steps and already is? why?

There is no special pleading - by definition, God is 'special' - the 'uncreated', self-existent one who created everything. God didn't skip steps because there were no steps to skip - there was no process of 'coming to be'.

All things in this context should read all created things.

To make an analogy, everything produced in a given factory are subject to the conditions in that factory, imposed by its owner or the one who built it. It is unreasonable to expect the owner to be subject to the restrictions imposed on items produced in his factory.

This same Ibime that said. . . . naah I won't get into the pit with y'all.

Leave story o, even if you don't like cane, the threat of cane works wonders.

I personally have an 'egba grandma' we keep in the corner for threatening purposes.

Defence is worrying because of our knack for picking up injuries - if we cut that out (jokes ) then there's a chance they'll be good enough.

Apparently we agreed a deal for Manolas but he wanted guarantees on first team action so didn't sign. I guess we'll need some Squillaci type player who won't mind warming the bench?

What's not clear is how that midfield sets up - seems more of a 4-2-3-1 most times with the three interchanging. I'm not sure it's working well so far.

musKeeto:
I've met people who have never heard about Jesus or the Cross. And they died not knowing human, never having that opportunity to have someone share the Gospel with them. Would they spend eternity in hell?

For the sake of argument, why does that matter to you? It's not as if you believe in heaven or hell. Why so concerned about the perceived fairness or otherwise of something you don't believe in?

Also do you think rejection of a story for which there's no evidence should lead to eternal damnation? Do you consider that fair?

Too many suppositions - what you regard as a story, what you consider there's no evidence for, and your definition of fair. Not so?

igbsam:

But we never yabbed him while he was at Arsenal the way arsenal yabbed our welbeck. Abi u need proof ?

Just how was Welbeck yabbed my Arsenal fans? The most I can recall saying was he needs to come into the 21st century and abandon that 'pali sugar' haircut of his.

I even remember rating him higher than Sturridge when they were still developing on loan till his progress appeared to slow down.

#Welbzisdatguy

I'm expecting big things from him once he puts on the Red and White

Weah96:
The proposition that God created everything is a knotty one for believers to handle. It implies that he also designed Ebola and HIV, just to name a few. Those viruses didn't exist before everything was created.

It's not a knotty one at all - creating everything (or more aptly the process by which all things 'come to be') is not the same as creating each and everything.

wiegraf:
then let's take a simple concept like 'being'. if 'being' did not exist before god created it, then how did god come to be?

My answer would be that the concept of 'coming to be' is only applicable to those things that have been created, therefore not applicable to God.

the presumed purpose of this thread may need explicit stating, but it's all very related. it is essentially about how things come to be, in a sense.

Fine - feel free to expand it as you please. If it's about how things came to be then, in my view, God is beyond that discussion as I've said above - God did not come to be because God has always been.

wiegraf:

OK. But which came first, light/energy or God?

If God, by definition, is the creator of everything, then the answer is obvious - unless of course light/energy is excluded from 'everything'.

I don't see how that serves the presumed purpose of this thread though.

What's with the wife references here?

Caracta:
Lol...which usual crew? You know I'm a one-man army

In that case you are rolling with the same crew - me, myself and I

^^ You dey mind that one?

Anyone who cannot differentiate between defiling and defying should be taken to the middle of the Sahara and left there.

Image123:

The ceremony laws were observed FOR justification, to be clean or holy. Today, Jesus does that. If anyone's going to observe any such laws, it's not for justification as that would be redundant. It's like using the abacus machine today. There's something better than the abacus. Tithes is not or should not be for justification.

This one na your own grammar you dey blow - Ola follows the 'principle' of Malachi, therefore he is following the 'principle' of justification through ceremony laws as you cannot detach Malachi and the temple - it is no different from wave and heave offerings.

If we follow the 'principle' of Malachi why can we not follow the 'principle' of heave offering and wave offering? Abi those 'principles' are not worth following? Aren't 'ALL SCRIPTURE' useful for doctrine or you sef don dey practice pick-and-chooseism'?

Caracta:
Wooooooooooooooooh!!! Yes! It worked!
Haba debosky. This is not how to treat a sister.

No vex jare, I was away for a while and just happened to check my mentions a few mins after your post

Are you still rolling with your usual crew?

Caracta: Is debosky still on NL?

Is Caracta single or taken?

wiegraf: Search long and hard, look for a weakness, a flaw. You will fail. They have no case. Light came first.

Sounds like contrived non-starter to me - the bible says light was created before humans so on the subject of which came first, both evolution and the bible agree.

To put it differently, there's no point in God creating eyes if there was no light for it to process.

nateevs:
I don't remember inviting the perenial losers to the debate. Guapo who let the dogs out?

Hehehe. . . .when your misyarning is caught out you now try to deflect eh? Show me what you won last season or keep schtum.

Y'all be talking about Matic like he's the second coming yet waste men like Naismith was running rings around him like he's Messi.

Matic is so good yet repeatedly we see JM bringing on the 'useless' Mikel to help solidify things when Matic starts getting battered eh?

Not to worry, we'll come back to this soon enough.

Good to know Guapo is still working hard as a maiguard/dog keeper though.

I expect your younger boys to be saying this. Not you. Chelsea conceded 20 goals before Matic joined Chelsea. After he joined, 7 goals.

Yet Matic was on the pitch when Everton threatened to scored 3/4 goals in how many minutes eh? Let's see how many goals y'all will concede this season and whether it will be considered BM (before Matic) or AM (after Matic)

^^ I'm sure you know passing a medical is different from being able to perform at the top level.

I wish Falcao well, but it's a risk buying a player just off the back of an ACL injury.

Alaafin na correct guy - see as he pack soyoyo babes together. Okunrin merin atabo.

Although since the man don 76 I'm suspect some young guys might be 'assisting' baba with his husbandly duties.

Image123:
okay good.
He's answered you i think.

No he didn't really - he is doing the usual duplicitous talking out of both sides of his mouth.

If Jesus fulfilled all the 'ceremonial' (I didn't see that term in my own bible by the way) law then how can you use a Malachi which refers to a 'ceremonial' storehouse/temple?

The same temple Jesus tore the veil in two is the one Malachi is based on and is the same 'house' that is spoken of. If my body is now the temple (i.e. the house) why is Ola not paying his tithe to me?

Pick-and-chooseism of the highest order.

Image123:
Olaaaaaaaa, your grammar wan wound me oh, lol.
Debo, are you implying that those scriptures are not divinely inspired?

Not at all - all I'm doing is exposing Ola's selective application of 'all scriptures are divinely inspired' - why abide by Malachi tithe+curse ostensibly for maintenance of the priesthood/support of the ministry and ignore wave offerings and heave offerings?

Why pick-and-choose and not apply all? Is the Malachi scripture more inspired than the one about fabrics?

Hehehe. . . .edi287 needs to calm down a bit. We've all been there and done that.

I think I'm getting myself a Danny Welbeck jersey - any footie player that can correctly use the word 'envisaged' in a sentence is clearly above average intelligence and worth supporting.

coogar:
welbeck will outscore rooney this season. let's bet.

Hehehe. . .let's see what happens after 10 league games. Too early to tell.

When will Welbeck get his work permi. . . .oh never mind.