₦airaland Forum

Huxley, can you tell me what internal inconsistency there is with God as I have defined and described him.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=326934.msg4597523#msg4597523 date=1253717320]Whether you admit it or no they are not all the same thing. The cause of the universe is very different from the variety of names you mentioned above. They are purely religious concepts and do not exist.[/quote].

These are names people ascribe to the creator.

An uncaused cause is definitely the creator.

Does it matter if in the process they begin to imagine other attributes and ascribe such to the creator?

Would that change the fact that they are talking about the First Mover?

Importantly - would that first mover cease to exist merely because they mis-characterized him?

Listen to yourself closely: Tudor: "Since Michael's description of the wind is wrong, contradictory and evil, then the wind does not exist"

? ? ? ? ? ?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=326934.msg4597449#msg4597449 date=1253716612]Oh thou faint hearted lawyer. . .i've been hit with worse. . . [/quote]

But you have this way of ignoring the lines of reasoning i give you (like above), and then reappearing two days later screaming "where is your proof."

Tudor, show me a fossilized Giraffe with a neck at an intermediate length of today's Giraffes, if you can.

Wirinet -

As a pont of interest, (although you said i should not ask) - What really is the universe expanding into.

It is expanding into space, is it not?

If so, can it really be true to state that space and time were created by the big bang?

What was there say 20 seconds before the big bang? Was that a different point in time than say - 30 seconds before the big bang (never mind that we were not there to measure the time, but surely, time is a non-contingent continuum?)

Does it not emerge that space and time are infinite and limitless and cannot be circumscribed by this universe or any other for that matter?

And if they are infinite could that be useful in understanding the uncaused cause.

wirinet:
My Friend Deep Sight,

By the tone of your post, i seem to have touched a nerve, my language must have offended you. I am very sorry for any derogatorily remark. You are indeed one of my treasured contributor along with about 5 other people to this forum. Please accept my profound apology.

O thank you! That's very kind of you, i admit, the "blinding ignorance" comment did prickle me quite a bit. I also apologize if i was deliberately heavy-handed in my response, thanks man!

O comon, naughty you Tudor, we have spoken repeatedly of a formless element comprised of the singularity of space and time. we have also sought to use examples of genetics and logic to show that the originating quantity possesses intelligence.

There you are: God, Brahman, Orisha, Chineke, Allah, whatever you like!

Man made distortions through religion are irelevant!

wirinet:
Your ignorance is blinding.

When you say 2 + 2 = 4, you have to tell us what the 2 represents. 2 what?. Einstein had proven close to a century ago, that when you add the speed, mass and length of physical objects, the final answer depends on the frame of reference of the two bodies and of the observer. So you cannot even compute the answer unless you know all three velocities.

I know that the velocity of moving objects on earth is extremely close to zero as compared to the speed of light, that makes measurements of these quantity close to your 2+2 =4, but in outer space the story might be different.

Also there is nothing like nothingness in the universe, even a supposed vacuum contains hydrogen atoms, some degree of gravitational force, photons, cosmic radiations and a host of other particles. It is only a vacuum (nothingness) in comparism to conditions on earth.

Please you people stop this "My fathers Farm is The Biggest, Greenest, and most beautiful mentality" there is a world of excitement and grandeur out there, you only have to open your eyes to see it.

Dear Wirinet;

I am surprised. It appears to me that you are so far gone in the reverie that a little education affords that you are unable to distinguish between deductive reasoning and mathematical accuracy.

I would strongly advise that going forward you make an effort to contextualize discussions and advance propositions within the context of a goal. It is rather puerile to abandon deduction in favour of hairsplitting irrelevances. Especially when this is done with un-called for abuse.

Let me school you a little.

THIS:

Deep Sight:
Dear Rosabelle, i can show you threads on this forum where Atheists have argued that we cannot be certain that 2 + 2 = 4. One atheist in particular began to assert that 2 + 2 = 4 on earth but maybe not on mars. When i talked about the existence of something, and contrasted that with nothingness, some atheists demanded a definition of what "nothing" means. At some point i asserted that the universe is something, and one of them asked me to prove that.

- IS A REFERENTIAL EXAMPLE ONLY directed towards demonstrating that the Atheist is only intent on, and indeed only capable of heckling, as opposed to advancing original ideas of his own. It is not a statement that that seeks to serve as uncorroborated proof of any of the equations cited as heckled examples.

Evidence of my belief that you are more intent in showcasing an absolutely irrelevant knowledge of physics than applying yourself to a deductive argument rests in the shocking frolic you went on in defining nothingness. You were not deep enough in that frolic to  realize that inherent within your very assertion that everything is something (containing forces and particles etc) lies absolute justification of my assertion that the universe is a something.

Secondly i amazed that a man of your supposed education could take such a limited and narrow approach to the definition of the word "nothing." To be precise, you showed this great limitation of your mind when you referred to the fact that there is nothing like nothingness in the universe. And so what about outside the universe? Did you avert your mind to that? Did you not realize that my dissertation within the referenced thread dealt with existential questions which can by no means be limited to this universe (we dont know if, or how many universes could be out there). The discussion on somethingness and nothingness was an esoteric metaphysical proposition concerning the vast cosmological argument which transcends matter alone. It dealt with the totality of space and time. Thus, your reference to "nothingness" being impossible in the universe was astonishingly limited. You leave me dissapointed because having praised your intelligence before on this forum, i am presently baffled as to the pedantry on display.

Even if all the foregoing was incorrect, your graet failure would still lie in failing to grasp the philosophical argument contained within the nothingness equation. That equation sought to prove the existence of a first mover, or an uncaused cause, by showing exactly that nothingness can only produce nthingness, and that accordingly, the universe as we know it, came from a pre-existing somethingness.

Can you see now how dreadfully irrelevant your little chat about Einstein and Velocity was?

Don't be too eager to advertise a little education, in this instance, you have lost the plot, on account of an eagerness, if i may say - to be seen praying in the street.

Finally: I dont know what you mean by backyards. I have never claimed one.

I posted these earlier, but no Trinitarian had the balls to give me a point by point response to the verses cited here.

These verses show that Jesus HIMSELF never thought that he was God.

Only his apostles and other followers (typical humans inclined to deification of leaders and hro worship) began to call him God.



Did Jesus ever claim to be God? Please review these:

The words of Jesus:

John 8:40: “, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

John 14:28: "You heard me say,'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

John 20:17: "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

Mark 10:18: “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

Guys from the foregoing there can be NO DOUBT, that Jesus NEVER, NOT EVEN FOR ONE SECOND, regarded himself as God. Notwithstanding anything the hero-worshipping Apostles will tell you. But even they said a lot to show that they didn’t think so –

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.


1 Peter 1:3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Acts 2:36: “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Let’s face it: the Trinity was created by the Roman Catholic Church and not Jesus Christ, and now people are ready to die to affirm the truth of it, disregarding Jesus’ own words.

So beware: calling him God – or “part of God” – is definitely blasphemy.

Dear Rosabelle, i can show you threads on this forum where Atheists have argued that we cannot be certain that 2 + 2 = 4. One atheist in particular began to assert that 2 + 2 = 4 on earth but maybe not on mars. When i talked about the existence of something, and contrasted that with nothingness, some atheists demanded a definition of what "nothing" means. At some point i asserted that the universe is something, and one of them asked me to prove that.

In summary, they  generally do not have much to say, and are content to trifle around with words and hollow questions. Beyond a collective hatred of man-made religion, they can never muster intelligible reasons for calling themselves atheists. Not that i demand proof from them, but at least some faint idea as to why they have chosen their path. . . the only reason they are able to muster is that "religion is false and corrupt."

Of course this is just like assering that a faulty car which has been used to kill people had no manufacturer, on account of its faulty and evil nature.

Unthinkable reasoning.

Poster: save yourself the stress and look at it this way:

You do not need to believe in the existence of the Abrahamic God.

But at all events, something caused the universe to come into existence, and that something clearly manifests attributes of intelligence and power.

That something also clearly contains all the elements of all that exists; both good and evil.

So God, understood rightly, definitely exists.

Atheism is the positive denial of the existence of God.

It is not doubt as to his nature. That is more in line with agnosticism.

So please stop going around calling yourseld an atheist on the grounds that God as defined  by religion is contradictory or even wicked. That we do not understand the uncaused cause does not invalidate its existence.

Contemplate the universe. Can you fathom it?

O. . . you cannot, right? . . . Does your failure to fathom it mean that it ceases to exist?

Bingo!

Although i am not muslim, i must state that the christian claim that Jesus is God is a thousand times more absurd than anything contained in Islam. It's far more absurd and laughable than Islamic justification of their Paedophile prophet.

@ Jagunlabi - I have said repeatedly that i am[b] NOT[/b] trying to prove the existence of the Abrahamic God.

Thus, i succeed in proving the existence of an uncaused cause, an eternal existent and permanent quantity, which you define as "The Quantum Field."

This is what Tudor seems not to get.

As you posit that the first microscopic life form must have arisen from some pre-biotic soup, can you please tie that in with Loius Pastuer's experiments which showed that life can only come from pre-existing life?

You atheists make the religious fanatics look brilliant, cos you never advance any thoughts of your own, you ONLY seek to discredit the thoughts of others.

That's not very original.

You must admit alot of the predictions are generalistic statements which any political watcher can accurately envisage.

I absolutely agree that the church is indeed full of people more stupid than cows.

That does not in any way justify the assertions of men (you lot) who state as follows:

"Since man-made religions are lies, there is no cause for the existence of the universe, or if there is a cause, that cause could not be an intelligent being."

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Motivational speaker looking for money, maybe. . .

By the way, Tudor, i am yet to see you start a thread (maybe cos am new to N/L)

Could it be because you are better at asking questions than providing answers?

huxley:
No - Many people are atheists because the god-narratives they have heard so far makes no sense. Do you believe in god? Which God is that - the Christian Gods, the Muslim gods, Zeus, Sussicorn, etc, etc?

Can you give us a positive primary definition of the god you believe in so that the atheists here on NL can examine. Maybe your god is the god all the atheists have been waiting for!

I have said severally that i am neither christian nor muslim. But i do belive in God.

The definition of the God that i believe in, since you ask is: the uncaused cause of all existence, one clearly manifesting attributes of intelligence, passion, beauty and purpose. A Divine Being without Form containing all the components of space, time and eternity.

@ Krayola, don't worry, the (so-called) christian, Davvidylan, is always ready to brandish childish insults once a person disagrees with him. A staggering absence of maturity, i'd say, although i must also criticize your heavy-handed response regarding his parents: that was certainly unnecessary.

@ Topic; You are spot on. The truth is that these religions have so much in common that it is amazing that people can be so divided over them.

The division, to my mind, concerns Jesus of Nazareth, and the deluded claims that he must be God. Barring this, and barring the equally ridiculous claims about salvation through his crucifixion, all the religions are one religion only.

he is really incredibly evasive!

This is sickening. I am beginning to become really circumspect and wary of Noetic's intelligence or rationality.

It is obvious that the man is every bit as unreasonably fanatical as the muslims he attacks so vociferously.

For crying out loud, even a kindergarten pupil would have seen that we clearly explained the "oneness" statements with the words of Jesus himself.

I repeat (as i would have to do to a toddler): Jesus said severally that he was one with the father in the same way as the church was one with each other and one with him. I said: clearly not an existential oneness but metaphorical oneness. What part of this do you not understand? ? ? ? ? ? ? Quote: "I and the father are one, just as ye and i are one" (Are you Jesus?) "Father, may they be one, just as we are one" (Are you Davidylan?).

Noetic, my respect for your faculties is fast depreciating. . .

Did Jesus ever claim to be God? Please review these:

The words of Jesus:

John 8:40: “You are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

John 14:28: "You heard me say,'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

John 20:17: "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God[color=#990000][/color] and your God.”

Mark 10:18: “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

Guys from the foregoing there can be NO DOUBT, that Jesus NEVER, NOT EVEN FOR ONE SECOND, regarded himself as God. Notwithstanding anything the hero-worshipping Apostles will tell you. But even they said a lot to show that they didn’t think so –

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Acts 2:36: “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Let’s face it: the Trinity was created by the Roman Catholic Church and not Jesus Christ, and now people are ready to die to affirm the truth of it, disregarding Jesus’ own words.

So beware: calling him God – or “part of God” – is definitely blasphemy.

EVASIVE ANSWERS, nOETIC, .

Huxley; your posts indicate that you seem not be be contesting the existence of God, but his nature, yes?

Mazaje please my memory is failing me, can you be so kind as to assist to point out where in the Bible God requests human sacrifices.

If Jesus could have rejected even the mildest praise in saying: "Don't call me good, only God is Good"

Don't you think he would also be inclined to say "Don't worship me, only God should be worshipped"? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Why do scientists think?

Why do athletes run?

Why do dogs bark?

Get it now? ? ? ?

Your question is preposterous because being religious requires prayer just as surely as being an athlete requires running?

You got to do better.

I suspect you do not have an intelligible reason for being an Atheist. Many people are Atheists on this Forum because its fashionable to be one. Can you give me your reason for calling yourself an atheist?

Noetic, if you can cite me even ONE verse in the bible where Jesus himself claimed to be God, i will be silent forever. There is not even one.

And let me make your work easier by averting the "I and the Father are one" statement, because in that very breath he also said - "Just as ye and i are one." Also in praying to God he said, "May they all be one, just as ye and i are one". So its clear that the "oneness" was not existential but metaphorical.

If you can show me ONE VERSE where he claimed to be God, I will go on exile. If you cannot do this, you have lost your certificate of worthiness.

On the other hand, i can show you more than ten verses where he positively asserts that he is NOT God.

Do the words 'Council of Nicea" mean anything to you?

Although i regard Abuzola as mentally unbalanced, you christian folk actually make him look like Einstein sometimes. Imagine Noetic calling a 1st Century Jewish Carpenter God?

Why don't you also accept the claims of Olumba Olumba Obu and Sat Guru Maharaji to be God? ? ?

@ HORNY4U. . . dont mean to sound brazen, but your psuedonym turns me on

davidylan - I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOUR RESPONSES.

NOETIC'S ATTEMPT WAS ENTIRELY UNSATISFACTORY.

abuzola for gods sake stop speakin a language we dont understand

Not very impressed, noetic, will respond latter