₦airaland Forum

DeSepiero:
I've checked so what point are you trying to make please?
I want to understand your view here.

DoctorAlien:
The universe began to exist! The amount of energy in it is finite, and so for the singularity(whatever that is) to be there eternally is impossible. It would have used up the finite amount of energy a long time ago, thus preventing the universe from existing.

Vanceastro:
BEGIN... as in started expanding ~14 billion years ago? I agree but that isn't the same as beginning to EXIST.

Vanceastro:
The universe expanded from a certain point, I agree. But you have to show that the universe began to exist at point. Simple

DeSepiero:
Why do you feel so?

Vanceastro:
Sarcasm..duh

Vanceastro:
Yea right, because Entropy is equal to energy. 8-)

Vanceastro:
Where is the energy reducing to. You do realise the total energy of the Universe can be taken as zero as measurement of Energy is relative.

Vanceastro:
Science did not prove that the began to exist. It also proved that the universe began to expand from certain point. So your arguments are null and void.
Read a Physics textbook, not articles.

Vanceastro:
Look at this man.
In your previous post you claimed that God could not have been caused because CAUSALITY requires TIME which didn't exist before the universe.
In the same way the universe could not have been caused because CAUSALITY requires TIME which didn't exist before the universe.

Vanceastro:
And for God to create the universe there must be a TIME difference between the CAUSE(God) and the EFFECT(The Universe), and since there was no time before the universe... :|

jimmyjenseng:
The Cosmological Arguments which is one of Thomas Aquinas' Proofs is baseless and vacuous.

The above argument relies upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it. It makes the entirely assumptions that God himself is immune to the regress.

Auki:
All prophets of God, including Jesus worshiped God alone. Concept of Jesus divinity is invented.

Auki:
The God of old testament is the same God of new testament.

He is one absolute God without wife,

son or partner.

Paganism introduced into Christianity by Pauline Christian is the sole reason for the current confusion.
Invented idea like trinity, original sin and Jesus divinity are the problems.

Christianity was initially a pure monotheistic religion just like Judaism and Islam.

Auki:
Muslim love humanity and hates paganism.

Is darkness equal to light?

Muslim worships God the creator not Jesus or Mary.

Muslim acknowledge Jesus as human being sent by God. Not as God, Son of God or partner to God.

Muslim acknowledge Mary as chaste and saintly woman but not a partner to God

Muslim acknowledge Noah, Abraham, Mosses, Job, David, Solomon, John, Muhammad, Lut, Jesus etc as prophets of God.

Muslim believe that all prophets central message is for humanity to worship the creator alone and avoid worship of creation like sun, stars, Jesus, Mary e.t.c.

[s]Catholics inventing Islam is like saying falsehood inventing truth.[/s]

KingEbukasBlog:


Lol . My brother oberve well oo .

Come to think of it , we really need to understand why they take their position as atheists without their jeremiads about religion . So in the absence of religion , let's see things more from a scientific and philosophical perspective .

Let's see if they can prove that atheism is not illogical

jimmyjenseng:
OK. So, who suffered from tritanopia: the evangelists or One who inspired the writing of the scripture?

I'm just curious.

alchemist13:
I haved googled



The problem is that this does not reconcile with Matthew at all as he has Mary returning with joy after both Marys, atleast, have communicated with an angelic being.

jimmyjenseng:
Were the evangelists suffering from tritanopia? More so, this defect has nothing to do with the red colour - correct me if I'm wrong bro.

AgentOfAllah:
Never a more ferocious strain of cognitive bias than that which is expressed up there.

alchemist13:
In addition, for this part of Matthew to even harmonize with John, Mary couldn't have been amongst the "they" as she would have to have fled the tomb upon realizing the stone had been moved.

I and AgentOfAllah actually don't have much of a problem with other women in Matthew however inconsistent it may be. It is you that has to show that Mary was not part of the "they" that left with joy since in John the same Mary apparently fled without much joy.

alchemist13:
I don't think you are reading any of your critics properly.

Let us even grant that in Matthew's mind there were more women; that he just didn't mention them at the beginning of his narration. Then how else is his readers supposed to know that Mary Magdalene is not amongst the women that "... departed... with great... joy" when he makes no reference whatsoever to any other women?

What you fail to see is that Mary here, contradicts with John's version and there is no way a reader of Matthew alone will know that Mary was not amongst the women that left with joy.

AgentOfAllah:
When a story mentions the names of two women, and shortly after, says "the women" nobody is in any doubt as to the identity of "the women" being referred to.

So, by all means, fabricate and obfuscate all you want, but Matthew is there for the discerning mind to read! Fabricate, obfuscate, then accuse others of being dishonest.

AgentOfAllah:
What you fail, understandably, to admit, is that both Matthew and John explicitly mentioned Mary Magdalene; but in completely incongruent contexts!

In Matthew's account, Mary Mag and the other Mary left with Joy (knowing what had happened), In John, Mary Mag came back crying and confused as to the whereabouts of Jesus' body. If this isn't a clear cut contradiction of two accounts, then we might as well believe that the earth is spherically flat.

jimmyjenseng:
Lol. There's a sharp contrast between both colours and they are easily noticeable by the human eyes, ergo, your definition from wikipedia, I suppose, makes it inconclusive.

The Evangelist were undecided about the true colour but agreed that the robe had an element of red?! Were they writing on their own accord?

4everGod:


My brother some mothers do have them. The mixture of ignorance and dishonesty is a deadly one and they wield that axe so well

Leave them to debate among themselves. No matter what you say they will never admit to anything. The only way i was able to get Pastor AIO to admit his own yesterday was when he set a trap for me but found himself falling into the same trap he set while i stood outside the trap telling him ntoor.....

That was when he was able to finally admit OK THANK YOU! But even at that he now switched the argument to something else altogether. That was also trashed. A thread that i was able to close twice when i slammed his arguments using scripture but arrogance would never let him quit. Goalpost shifting and strawmen was in full effect last night.

Let these ones be. All of dem na same of same.

alchemist13:
I don't think you are reading any of your critics properly.

Let us even grant that in Matthew's mind there were more women; that he just didn't mention them at the beginning of his narration. Then how else is his readers supposed to know that Mary Magdalene is not amongst the women that "... departed... with great... joy" when he makes no reference whatsoever to any other women?

What you fail to see is that Mary here, contradicts with John's version and there is no way a reader of Matthew alone will know that Mary was not amongst the women that left with joy.