₦airaland Forum

Thank you for your very robust final response on D1, which I am still digesting. As per our rules, I can have no further comment until our concluding remarks at the end of the thread.

D1 has now been fully treated.

I would like to make a proposal on your treatment of A2. It seems to me to be similar in character to A1 - in that it is like a list of three. As such, I feel that you might end up repeating yourself. Can we take your comments on A1 to be mirrored in A2, and as such move on straight to the more substantive A3?

Nevertheless, I might be jumping the gun. Perhaps you might have an angle or a spin on A2 that I have not anticipated. I await you sire.

^^^ Please feel free to make your observations.

DrummaBoy: ^OK... I will do that

Checked again and I guess this is the answer to my question



I confess that maybe it is my ability or inability to comprehend the English but I still do not think it answers my question.

You need not answer it though as I believe as the thread progresses I would understand what need be understood, so as not to divert the thread. I want you, Deep, to go back to the rules at the beginning and state how we the students or viewers of this thread can come into the discourse without unnecessarily derailing the thread with comments or questions like mine. Since this a meant to be an academy with tutors or debaters and students or viewers.

Thanks.

Well, I proposed the rules, and for a reason too. I suppose that it would be inappropriate to dishonor the rules now, at least, not without anony's consent. We are not tutors o, (not by a mile!) we are all putting our heads together to see if we can unravel the trajectory of biblical teaching on this controversial matter.

You raise a valid concern about other participants throwing in questions. I feel that such questions may lead to unending responses from discussants and as such we may have trouble reaching closure on each verse and proceeding to the next verse.

I suggest we await Anony's suggestion on this problem. While I see how the rules stifle extra participation, I also fear that this will lead to a disintegration of the flow and the speedy progression. If I begin to answer your question for example, i may raise issues that Anony will have to respond to, and so on and so forth.

My suggestion will be that discussants be permitted, after each verse has been treated, to answer questions only by referring the questioner to the portions of their treatment of the verse that they believe address the question, if any.

DrummaBoy: @Deep

While I could say U did justice to the Romans 9:5 scripture, to me, U failed to answer Anony's point that D1 was telling us of Christ's function as a mediator and not referring to his deity as such.

I believe I answered that question if you will read my post again carefully. Based on the rules of posting I agreed with Anony, it would be wrong for me to take a second bite at the cherry: right now, its Anony's response to be given, and that will be the end of our treatment of the verse. I do not get to say anything further. I can only suggest that you read my post again carefully.

D1 - Response to Rebuttal

Mr anony:

I do not agree with number 2 that Jesus is not God because that is simply not what the text says. Let us read the text again.

1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 [b]For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ[a]and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.


Remember that I pointed out to you that the Trinity is NOT 3 Gods. It is one God in three persons. Remember also that I pointed to you the subtle difference between form(nature) and function. This is very important because when describing someone as God or a man, you are describing his/her nature however when describing someone as a mediator, you are describing the person in terms of his/her function (what he/she does). Saying that the mediator can neither be God or man simply does not follow because being a mediator is a role that is played and not the nature of a thing.

For instance, assuming you had read a verse that said. "We have one God and one Father of all creation...." You would immediately understand that despite the "and" in the sentence, God and the Father of creation are not different entities but one and the same because "father" as used in the sentence shows the role God is playing therein.
In fact as you continue reading, 1 Timothy 2:6 says "who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time..." further showing us that "mediator" is as a result of what He did and not a definition of what He is.

I respond by saying that the word "Father" whenever ascribed to God, would not contradict the word "God", but the word "mediator" will always contradict the word "God" in so far as it specifically goes on to say that this is a mediator between God and men.

Further, your hypothetical verse substituting the word "mediator" for the word "father' is a very bad mis-application indeed, because the word "father" corroborates the word "God" whereas the word "mediator" does not.

Your hypothetical text would certainly not read - "There is but one God, and one Father between God and Men", would it?

That resolves your rebuttal: your rebuttal is very clearly mis-footed, because it does not subsume the core of that which I pointed out - namely, the function of a role said to be of one between God and men.

To further prove to you that Paul couldn't possibly mean that Christ is not God, remember it was the same Paul who said in Romans 9:5

"....of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen" (NKJV).

The latter part of Romans 9:5 is said to be a doxology, a piece of praise to God. Indeed in many translations, it appears as a separate statement saying "God be forever praised." This would however depend on the punctuation. It should be noted that the original Greek (which I re produce further-on below) had no punctuation therein, and as such is open to a number of varying interpretations depending on the punctuation used in the translation. For this reason, many Trinitarian Scholars do not depend on this verse in proof of the Trinity.

I should draw your attention to the way that this verse is rendered in the KJV - "Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."(AV). The latter part of the verse is a piece of doxology to God the Father, praise and blessing on God for the coming of Christ. This is quite clear as you will see below.

You will see from the Scholastic Views and particularly the rendition of the Greek, I have excerpted below, that depending on the punctuation, there are a number of ways to read that verse: my contention will be that the overall thrust of comparative scripture on the deity of Christ must lead us to read it as a follow on doxology to God.

I will leave you with Scholastic views which affirm that which I am saying regarding the punctuation of that verse, and the reality that the latter part of that verse is actually a follow-on doxology, a piece of praise to God -

Scholastic Views:

"However, the Greek grammar of this verse allows for three possible translations and this is admitted by all reputable Trinitarian scholars. The key issue at Romans 9:5 essentially concerns punctuation. Paul did not use the modern punctuation conventions that we use today. He did not provide commas and periods in Romans 9:5 as translators conveniently give us and translators have three options open to them.

1. Christ according to the flesh who is God over all be blessed to the ages. Amen.

2. Christ according to the flesh who is over all. God be blessed to the ages. Amen.

3. Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed to the ages. Amen.

The actual Greek text reads, "kai ex wn o cristoV to kata sarka o wn epi pantwn qeoV euloghtoV eiV touV aiwnaV amhn," and comes out word for word in English as, "and out of whom the Christ according to flesh the one being over all God be blessed to the ages amen." No commas, no periods.

The verse can be, and should be, translated as "from whom the Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed to the ages. Amen.", or possibly but not likely, "from whom the Christ according to the flesh who is over all. God be blessed to the ages. Amen." The phrase "God be blessed to the ages" is a Pauline doxology."

[Some excerpts from, and more at - http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Rom9_5.html]

This is the EXACT Greek rendition of the verse and its translation -

kai ex wn `o cristoV to kata sarka 'o
and out of whom the Christ the [one] according to flesh the [one]

wn epi pantwn qeoV euloghtoV eiV touV aiwnaV amhn
being over all God be blessed to the ages Amen

You can see very clearly that indeed, there is no punctuation and as such the natural reading should be that the latter part of the verse is a doxology to God.

This is VERY clear from the Greek word-for-word above.

This reading is further backed up by the fact that the term "the blessed one" is only ever used as a reference to God in the NT - The word eulogetes is variously translated as "be praised" or "be blessed." The "Blessed be" is the Jewish berakah, an ascription of praise to God the Father. (Mark 14:61), (Luke 1:68), (Romans 1:25), (2 Corinthians 1:3), (Ephesians 1:3), (1 Peter 1:3), (Romans 1:25), (2 Corinthians 11:31).

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology:
"Rom. 9:5 is disputed...It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, 'Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.' Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God."-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), Vol. 2, p.80.

John Ziesler in his book Pauline Christianity (Revised edition 1990, Oxford University Press 'Oxford Bible Series') comments:

"In facing the question of the relationship of Christ to Yahweh we must not outrun the evidence and read into Paul's language the Fourth Century definition of Christ as God the Son, co-equal and co-eternal, of one substance with the Father. Paul's language is one of the factors leading to that definition, and also part of the problem it attempted to solve, but it would be anachronistic to interpret his language in such later terms. Perhaps he preferred 'Lord' as a title because of its ambiguity, because it established Christ's relation to humanity, church, and cosmos, without too closely defining his relation to Yahweh. As a Jewish monotheist Paul would wish neither to be accused of believing in two Gods, nor that Yahweh died on the cross. The only place in the undisputed letters where he may equate Christ with God is Rom.9:5 if a full stop is not placed after 'Christ', so that it reads '...of their race...is the Christ who is God over all...' More probably it should read '....of their race...is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed....' -p.44

Anthony Buzzard, a Unitarian, in his book "The Doctrine of the Trinity--Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound" wrote on page 268 quoting the great Catholic Renaissance writer, Erasmus; and note what Erasmus has to say regarding Romans 9:5:

"Those who contend that in this text[Rom.9:5] Christ is clearly termed God, either place little confidence in other passages of Scripture, deny all understanding to the Arians, or pay scarcely any attention to the style of the Apostle. A similar passage occurs in Second Corinthians 11:31: "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever"; the latter clause being undeniably restricted to the Father."
(Quoted by Buzzard, but taken from "Works", ed. Jean Leclerc, 10 vols. Leiden)

The Expositor's Greek Testament by W. R. Nichol on pp 658, 659 states: "If we ask ourselves point blank, whether Paul, as we know his mind from his epistles, could express his sense of Christ's greatness by calling Him God blessed for ever, it seems to be almost impossible to answer in the affirmative. Such an asserion is not on the same plane with the conception of Christ which meets us everywhere in the Apostle's writings; and though there is some irregularity in the grammar, and perhaps some difficulty in seeing the point of a doxology, I agree with those who would put a colon or a period at SARKA, and make the words that follow refer not to Christ but to the Father."

[Excerpts From - http://onlytruegod.org/defense/romans9.5.htm]

Conclusively, the key point regarding Romans 9:5 is that Paul does not use punctuation as you have seen in the Greek above. Translators therefore liberally punctuate the verse to deliver different meanings. My conclusive point is that the Greek, without punctuation, does not disclose a statement that Jesus is God. This is clear and indisputable.

So my dear friend, from what we have read, that verse does not say that Christ is not God.

It certainly says that there is one God only, [size=16pt]and[/size] one mediator [size=16pt]between[/size] God and Men, the man Christ Jesus.

It saddens me that your entire rebuttal failed to take cognizance of the key and overriding importance of the meaning and function of the word "mediator" in the context of the words "between God and men"

Nowhere in the New testament says this.

It is in fact all over the New Testament and in the very words of Christ himself.

The only way you could have read that Christ is not God in 1Tim 2:5 was if you started from a prior assumption that God is only and can only be one person of one being.

The only way you could have read D1 the way you did is the fact that you are starting from a rigid and dogmatic position which holds that regardless of what you see in scripture, and no matter how clearly it is spelt-out, Christ is and must remain God.

I would caution you against this: do not uphold your pre conceived dogma over plain and evident scripture. Remember the Literal rule.

P/s: One small point to take note of: The new testament writers usually would use "God"(Theos) to represent the Father and "Lord" (Kurios) to represent the Son though on a few occasions, they would switch the terms, referring to the Father as Kurios and the Son as Theos. Interestingly, they called Jesus Christ the Lord in the very same way old testament writers called the Father the Lord. It is also interesting to note that when new testament writers translated the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHVH (Jehovah) they almost always translated it as Kurios (The Lord) a term they used to refer to Christ.

Their view of Jesus as Messiah justifies such usage, without any necessary implication that they therefore thought that he was God. Today, we refer to Judges in court as "My Lord." Kings, Princes, Dukes, Generals, Popes and Regents throughout history have been referred to by Christians as "My Lord." Also the use of the word 'Theos' does not prove anything here, because they regarded the messiah as being of Divine origin, and theos, as noted above does not carry an article. Being of Divine origin - the monogenes of God, does not make him God. Any more than you and I being of spiritual origin makes me you.

At all events I submit that this point is completely irrelevant to D1 and you are free to bring it up for thorough discussion wherever it is relevant.

Logicboy03: Humor is not your strong point....

That was really dry

I do not see sarcasm as humor, professor.

wiegraf: Still hard to swallow.

Surely not. You would not expect humans and other living things to exist in a void, would you? And, as far as we can see in terms of strict logic, they, since existing, would have to exist somewhere, and that somewhere could not exist if it did not also exist somewhere - to wit - a universe.

For instance, why even evolution in the first place? It's not the most surefire way of coming up with humanity; chance.

Evolution, as it truly occurred, has nothing to do with chance, my friend. It has to do, with programmed logic.

Hundreds of millions of years of throwing dice? No way a conscious intelligence was behind that. Even our breeders are more efficient. Waiting millions/billions of years for nebula to turn to stars, scouring myriad of them, fingers crossed, hoping planets in goldilucks zones spring up. Letting 99% of species die before arriving at us, why? That many were needed to die, why? Leaving us to the mercy of a meteor obliterating us, or many other possible extinction level events, events that have actually taken place on this planet. Etc etc..

You forget, ofcourse, that the creating being may not experience time in the way that we do. Even we do not experience time in the same way that other creatures right here on earth do, and so this only stands to reason. The creating being may experience your billions of years as a fraction of a second, especially as an eternal being.

These are definitely not the actions of an intelligent consciousness with the purpose being us, not at all. The personal god concept in particular is flawed no matter how you look at it.

No it is not, because evolution has no need or requirement for things like the capacity for philosophy, music, art and the varied aestheic appreciation which are key qualities of the human mind. If you think about it, you will find that there is no human being on earth who has ever lived his life on the presuppositions that you are making. Every human being from birth, has experienced life as a thinking, feeling being cognizant of a past and future, elements which are ALL recognized as immaterial realities. This is awfully personal, my friend, and you have only to pause for a second to recognize it.

Evolution has no impetus for consciousness, much less the sentient sapience that humans have.

Evolution would have no impetus for the existence of non-unicellular life, as unicellular life has always been and remains the most successful life. Not to speak about the evolution of beings cognizant of abstract concepts which have nothing to do with matter whatsoever. Evolution cannot possibly account for the existence or development of such in any coherent manner whatsoever. You would simply struggle to show the evolutionary impetus for such things: they do not exist.

Also, before you can even assert this you have to show that this universe is the only conceivable one, or at least the optimal one for whatever the purpose may be.

If you do not know the purpose, you cannot discuss the question of whether it is optimal for its purpose or not.

However, infinite universes are conceivable.

One thing I do notice however, that seems to be missing in your thought development processes is the simple fact that one thing follows upon another. You seem to expect that if God exists, it would wave a magic wand and just create all things, abracadabra. The reverse is what is true: if God exists, it would be the sum of self existent laws and as such would only proceed from logical cause to logical effect throughout eternity: as such you will only have one thing naturally and logically following another, a la evolution, and a la, the existence of the vast cosmos.

Logicboy03: Guy, just give up.


Let us look at this with reason-

If the big bang resulted in just one or two galaxies, it would be enough for humans to exist.

Or look at it this way.....an assumption..if we found out that there is a galaxy outside our universe just on it's own, can we say that it wouldnt hold humans because a galaxy is not a universe?

You are not even following the thought development at all. I can not work with this, sorry.

Logicboy03: Load of BOLLOCKS!


Guy....this is BULLSHYTT!!!

I must congratulate you on your scholarly, erudite, balanced, incisive response.

Such a deep, profound and comprehensive approach to logical issues and debates must surely be emulated by all.

I will be putting in a recommendation at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge to have your approach listed as a compulsory course for all students.

More grease to your elbows, professor.

Chibuebem: no, thats not it. It seems you've not been yourself these days. You've been making very terrible statements

O, he is surely being his very normal and regular self.

Slow to grasp any reasoning, and most confident in error.

Logicboy03: Guy....your thinking remains fallacious.


You said- "It is thus perfectly conceivable that to create one human being, you need an entire universe."

The simple point here is that our galaxy or even smaller- our solar system is enough for us to exist.

You are making an anthropomorphic fallacy right here.

And given even the little we know of the big b.ang, is it possible for it to have sprouted just one galaxy?

If it did, would that galaxy not have disintegrated almost instantly, by expansion?

So you see, my friend, it does take a whole universe to make a man.

Logicboy03: BTW; you dont freaking need natural sand to make artificial sand in theory. You are thinking of the current method of using waste glass to make fine/soft sand.

The chemical elements of sand are already known.

O no, you miss the point entirely (as usual) - I am saying that you would not call artificial sand "artificial" if there was no such thing as natural sand in the first place.

Logicboy03: The contradiction that you and Uyi cant see is that your God too becomes of the mind....a creation of humand minds not an external being existing on its own

No, my friend. I did not say that everything is of the human mind.

I said everything is of mind.

In fact, I first drafted it the way I really mean it: I wrote: "everything is mind." I thought about it and added the "of" just to make it simpler to the reader.

I might render it also thus: Mind is everything.

Logicboy03: Wow....very nice way to miss the point. A human doesnt need a universe to exist. All he needs is a conducive environment not even as big as a planet

And can you imagine any such "conducive environment" which would not be a place existing in a universe?

For one who claims logic, you do not aspire to it at all.

Well, let's break it down for you. You have at least admitted the human would need an environment in which to exist. Okay. Now, would that "environment" exist in a void?

The environment in which we exist, is the earth. Could the earth exist without a sun? Could the sun exist, if not as part of a galaxy? Do I need to say all this all over again?

Oh and sand can be made artificially- although, very costly

Well for the sand to be artificial, you would first need a natural environment where there is natural sand - before you could declare anything else to be artificial sand. While we are at that, for it to be costly, you would need a community and an economy, which would still require an environment, which still cannot exist in a void, but only within a larger environment - a cosmos.

Are you sadistic or a prankster or something? Why do you have to make me painstakingly explain such a-b-c as though I am some kindergarten class teacher?

Logicboy03: A Universe consists of galaxies, stars and a huge amount of space.

All that is needed for humans to survive is a simple piece of land with conducive atmosphere. A human being can live in a glass tube if the conditions are right.

Glass tubes are made of sand, and for sand to exist, you will still need a cosmos, a universe.

It said "to create one human being" -

And that's perfectly sound.

To create a human being, you would need a place to place the human being in, no? Do places exist, absent a context, an environment, a cosmos?

Why is thinking, even the most elementary thinking, such as this, so hard for you?

Uyi Iredia: You fully missed Kant's point. It is too damn obvious he did not refer to a brain. You are the one having problems, since you fail to note that commonly held concepts eg chance, causality, motion etc have never been verified, not so. They are mental constructs (or immaterial ideas) used wrt physical objects. Your atheism, even your materialism depends on people apprehending this apprehended idea and you turn around and pretend certain ideas or assumed beings like God don't exist. You ignore my example of the pink unicorn showing how ideas materialize. Do wallow in your dark cave. When you REALIZE that existence itself is a concept you will realize any things imagined necessarily exist and the problem we face is materializing them. Furthermore, you will UNDERSTAND that causality starts not from matter but from intelligence behind the matter.

Have a good night's sleep, or a good day as the case may be.

End of.

That people cannot see that everything is of mind, is just hopeless.

DrummaBoy: Researching to return with a bang!

In my undergraduate dayz, I played a lot of chess. Three ways the game ran: the fast, called blitz. The regular which you could finish in half an hour. The lengthy one that could take months.

I think this discuss will be the lengthy type. So Deep, allow Anony to grab his arsenal and shoot to aim.

I hope so, but I am worried. I just checked his profile, and he has not been on Nairaland since Tuesday. Rather unusual for Anony. I hope he is well.

^^^ Could evolution happen outside a planet. Could humans exist without the earth. Could the earth exist without the sun and could the sun exist outside of a galaxy, and could galaxies exist absent a universe, and could a universe exist without the big b.ang, and could the big b.ang have happened without a singularity?

These answer your question on purpose, size and waste, re: the universe and us.

It is thus perfectly conceivable that to create one human being, you need an entire universe.

Pastor Kun: Wow This logicboy must be a professional stallker, i can't imagine how much time and energy you put in to your research before you wrote your dessertation on Jesoul.

It is bewildering, scary and creepy.

Anony - What's happening?

Would a man not be very foo.lish indeed to reject a drug, even if its a placebo, that gives him peace of mind, happiness and contentment?

In all of her time as a politician, never for once was Mrs. Clinton’s political career linked to the influence of her husband. She has since risen from her ceremonial role as a First Lady to become a leading presidential hopeful for the Democratic Party in the 2016 election. The case of the Bush family also provides a useful example. President George H. Bush, the 41st President of the US and his son, George W. Bush, the 43rd President were both presidents at different times. Perhaps, the most iconic is the Kennedy family. The Kennedys are prominent in American politics and government. Their political involvement revolved around the Democratic Party. The wealth, glamour, photogenic quality of the family members and their extensive and continuing involvement in public service, have elevated them to iconic status over the past half a century, with the Kennedys sometimes referred to as “America’s Royal Family”. Never for once was it reported that elections were manipulated in their favour.

Huh? No overt family influence? John Kennedy appointed his younger brother Attorney General. Curious, that Bush senior had two sons who were Governor, and one became President - in a controversial election wherein the controversial recount occurred in the state governed by the other Bush Brother - nice and convenient coincidence. You clearly never heard of the Florida re-count.

And if you think Bill Clinton's name, influence and popularity had nothing to do with Hilary's rise, you are just deluded.

Logicboy03: Paradox- if the scientists do not know how it happened, then how are they able to explain it with their theory?


See the contradiction you are getting yourself into?

"What caused the big bang" is a different question from "how the big bang works"

So you admit that the cause is unknown. Wholesale admission again.

Now, as per how the b.ang works, this is also not known. All that is observed is after the bang - the continuing expansion.

Now one knows how that b,ang itself happened or worked. All that is observed is the after effect - the continuing expansion.

Good morning!

Logicboy03: Cut and run


See dubious douchebag!

Which admission? I am explaining how science solved the case of our universe's past but no, feel free to make false claims about my admission!

Why not answer the simple question- how is a murder with no witness solved? I ask this because that is how science works to unravel past events

Just show me where science explains the how and why of the BB.

Good morning.

Logicboy03: So, a murder with no witness is unsolvable? Working something based on evidence from present to past doesnt make sense to you?


I heard that you were a lawyer. I hope you arent

This is just further admission that you do not know, and no one knows, how or why the Big B.ang occured!

A wholesale admission.

As such, your statement that science explains it, is proven to be false, by your own admission.

Good morning.

Logicboy03:

How did you get to know about the big bang in the first place? Scientific articles/journals. Did they mention God?

You dont even see how silly you are. You take somthing from science and claim that your "deist god" explains it better. Did your deist God tell you?

You cant even see the contradiction and foolishness of your stance. You read about the big bang from science who didnt mention God. You then went to put your false narrative that God did the big bang.

My ignorant friend, it my interest you to know that the Big Bang theory was propounded by a physicist who was a Catholic Priest.

That aside, and notwithstanding, the fact remains that no one knows how or why it happened. You therefore cannot claim that "science explains it".

It does not.

#Fact.

If indeed, it is known, please show me. Thanks.

Logicboy03: (Just to indulge your deviation, your analogy with a car is foolish. We existed before cars and know the full details of their origin. Evolution and the big bang are more akin to a murder with no witness.....a scientist is working with the evidence backwards from the present to the past)

This is just an admission that indeed, science does not explain either the how or the why of the Big B.ang!

Now focus: you said the science explains the Big Bang without the need for God.

This implies that scientists know exactly how it occurred and more importantly why it occurred and thus know that there is no need for any external transcendental input in its occurrence.

This is what I say is completely false.

Scientists do not know either how or why it occurred, and so you cannot claim that "science explains the BB without the need for God.'

It does not.

If it does, educate my ignorance and kindly show me where. As I said, a link will suffice.

Logicboy03: You were foaming at the mouth with anger (instead of logic) that is why you had to edit your post. when you calmed down.


I claimed that science explains the big bang and evolution without God. Either my statement is true or false.

You are shifting the argument and I wont indulge you. Is my statement true or false?

See my above 2 posts. I only edited my post to avoid wasting my time on your mis understanding of how evolution applies to the the first life issue: to wit: you cannot say that science explains evolution without God, when you are discussing the origin of life exactly because evolution does not address the origin of life! But I knew this is something that will take you up till your extreme old age to get your head around, and so I decided to cut it out and focus on the Big B.ang.

Now, you did say that science explains the BB without needing God. Please show me how it does this.

@ LB, re: the BB, in showing me how it happened, remember that I speak not just of watching the expansion in reverse: tell me how science explains the dynamics of the pre-existing singularity that therefore caused the expansion: how those dynamics caused the expansion. Thank you.

What you are explaining is the motion of a car from one point to another. You reverse the motion and say that the movement of the wheels explains how the car moved from one point to another. However that misses the question! The question is how the car got powered up and started in the first place. How the batteries got their power. How the ignition was started. That is the question - since we speak about origin.

Show me where science has explained this.

Logicboy03:

You are really silly. Where do God and science meet?


1) Science explains how the big bang occured by retracing an expansion of the universe.

Show me, just show me. A link will suffice.

Besides, I did not just say how, I also said why. Science does not explain this.

2) Evolution is not about the first life

I know that, and knew that you would raise that, and in fact was editing my post in that regard when you responded.

But you must know that when talking about the origin of things, you cannot then throw in evolution since it is not about first life!

When you throw in evolution in such a discussion, then I am entitled to point out that evolution does not explain first life!

And most importantly;
Just because science doesnt explain something, it means that it needs God? How silly

O no, I did not say that: i simply pointed out that it is wrong to say that science explains it: it does not!

NB: Previous post edited.

Logicboy03: Ignorance is a disease.

Have you seen any scientific paper on the big bang or evolution containing the word "God"?

Silly old man

Dishonesty is a disease.

You claimed that science fully explains the big ban.g and evolution without the need for a God.

Fact is, Science does not explain the Big b.ang without the need for a God.

Because, science does not explain how or why the big b.ang occurred.

If it does, please man up and show me the explanation. A link will suffice.

You are either a pathological liar or just plain ignorant of what you discuss.

[Post Edited]

wiegraf: Che... Context..
I ask again, should he add immaterial into his equations? And again, a scientist.

This is an existential discussion and without his immaterial thoughts, he would have no equations to speak of.

Now I'm sure you're just jelly of our superiar logical skills sir

But seriously, I'd have said the same thing about certain theistic/deistic views, but that wouldn't be exactly accurate. For instance, when left to themselves pigs don't go looking for $hit, however the folk I speak specifically go out of their to injest $hit. In fact, quite a few even enjoy imported $hit, expending resources to bring it into the country.

Ok, I'll get out of the way now

Lol, you shouldnt always take me seriously o!