₦airaland Forum

butterfly88:
I'm only against you attributing the origin of evil to Satan the accursed ...the creation of freewill is a better response..."and maybe that's the best design possible"

butterfly88:
ok..so it is from the creation of "freewill" afterall and not the devil

butterfly88:
... pardon me please,whats the verse trying to explain? @ doctoralien

butterfly88:
good,

now: you're trying to push the origin of "evil" to push the origin of sin to Satan the accursed and this is not correct


for it begs the question, does God have infinite knowledge? if yes!, that means therefore that He definitely knows that the creation of Satan will also bring sin(assuming Satan created evil)..now if He knows this prior to the creation of Satan and[b] wants a world free of evil[/b] Why did he go ahead with the creation of Satan?

the only way we can resolve this is either god has no prior knowledge (that is he doesn't know what he is about to make), which is incorrect.

i won't rush unto concluding...lets have your opinion.

DoctorAlien:
"...It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!" Luke 17:1.

Lennycool:
But you forget that it was the all knowing God that created Lucifer, knowing fully well he would later cause the downfall of mankind. He knew from the moment he made him what Lucifer would do and still created him

butterfly88:
What do you mean by "a being next in power to the Godhead please"?

donnffd:
I just want to ask this question following this logic:-

1. You cant give what you dont have.
2. God doesn't have an iota of Evil
3. God created all things in the universe
4. There is Evil in the universe.

So my question is where exactly did evil originate from, if God is devoid of it (and please the devil is not an answer because he too was created by God)?

Please only matured theists are invited to attempt the question, thanks.

cc: shadeyinka, lordnicklaus, doctoralien e.t.c

Antiparticle:
I have addressed all your problems with radiometric dating. I am ready to move on from it.

I have also addressed the cosmological issues. I am ready to move on as well. I should add though that your approach to summarily dismissing any information that doesn't fit your 6000-year old universe hypothesis is disappointing and make me less enthusiastic about this conversation.

We can move to ice cores if you want. Or we can terminate.

Antiparticle:
They only vary if the sample was contaminated. They don't if the sample wasn't contaminated (almost 100% chance). Rocks used to reliably date the earth don't have this problem.

Even if the second pair was contaminated, the isotope1-isotope2 contamination ratio has to be exactly proportional to the isotope1-isotope2 instantaneous decay rate ratio (now keep in mind that the decay rate is not linear) for the dating outcomes to still come out the same for both parent-daughter isotopes, so this is extraordinarily unlikely (literally almost zero!). And even if it happened for one sample, it wouldn't happen for a massive majority of samples.

Antiparticle:
Please read my posts again. This is the second time that you are asking questions I already addressed.

You did this same thing with blueshifts. I explained that blueshifts as a localized cosmological effect do not contradict the notion of an expanding universe. Localized effects are different from "far field" effects. How many times can I say this? You will successfully challenge the Big Bang if you show that blueshifts occur for galaxies extremely far away from us (tens of millions of light years away or more).

On the contamination topic, I have made it clear that contaminations are easy to detect because the dating results would be different if different isotope dating methods are used.

I assert that you are not debating in good faith.

Antiparticle:
Another thing you did, which I ignored, was your assertion that the NIV version of the Bible should not be considered to be the Bible. You did this because I showed you that the Book of Mark in NIV acknowledged problems with forgery. This, once again, is not debating in good faith.

Antiparticle:
I have debunked your key assumption of sample contamination, and you resorted to the statement that the scientists are lying. How else do you want me to engage you if when you run out of rebuttals, you say that the scientists are lying? Look at things from my perspective. I really can't continue if your last resort argument will always be that the scientists are lying.

It shows that you are not debating in good faith.

Antiparticle:
I just explained the blueshifts to you bro. Are you debating honestly?

Antiparticle:
Once again, you are mistaken. The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to before the Big Bang. We don't know what the laws of physics were before the Big Bang.

Antiparticle:
I don't know if you read my previous post closely enough. If they were contaminated, the age estimations would be different for different dating methods! And there are cases where this has been observed. Yet, physical scientists do their best to identify rocks with the minimal estimation possible, which is what is done for an incredible majority of samples used. Without contamination, the dated age is the same when different radiometric dating isotopes are used. Several rocks scattered around extreme ends of the earth (as well as from meteorites) have shown a similar ~4.6 billion year age for our solar system. This is inarguable and incontrovertible.

Goshen360:
...coming soon. .. Is God the author of confusion? Why do we have different
prophecies contradicting one another from the same God by
different head of assemblies year in, year out? Does the
new testament teach such predictions as it was of the old
covenant or these men are plainly confused? What does it
mean in the new covenant to prohesy? These and many more we'll be looking into.

OLAADEGBU:
Jesus and the apostles especially Paul only went to the Synagogue to do missionary and evangelical work.

Do you drive or take public transport? Do you turn the switch on Sabbath days?

Were the Gentile Christian coverts in Acts of the Apostles ever commanded to keep the Sabbath?

OLAADEGBU:
But keeping the Sabbath law goes further than that. It includes the fact that you cannot leave your home on the Sabbath (Exodus 16:29), neither could you build a fire or turn on a switch (Exodus 35:3), and you cannot cause anyone else to work (Deuteronomy 5:14). What stops you from being put to death if you break the Sabbath law according to ==>(Exodus 31:15; Numbers 15:32–35)?