₦airaland Forum

4everGod:
How would you know it was a gun shot wound if you have not seen one before and if you do not know what a gun shot wound looks like and if you have never seen what a gun shot wound looks like and you see this, why would you conclude it was a gun that did it especially when you also have not seen a gun before as well? Does that make any sense to even the origin of the homicidal death theory?

Why are you bent on being dishonest with yourself?

You asked a question about how we can accept a theory if it cant answer all the questions, and i gave you a simple to understand scenerio where you indeed can and you are hellbent on discrediting it...

peacesamuel94:
But you rarely spend precious time arguing about how unreal the spaghetti monster, fairy godmother and the likes are. So what makes Christianity so special. Why is it that your posts on the fallibility of the Christian belief is on a higher percentage compared to your other posts on nairaland, if at all you write about anything else.

There isnt a book dedicated to the spaghetti monster or the fairy godmother.
People dont kill themselves about which of their fairy godmother is the best one.
People dont build houses and dedicate one day to worshiping the spaghetti monster.
People dont pay tithes and offerings to the fairy godmother.
People dont indoctrinate their children into believing that the spaghetti monster is real and if they dont worship it, they would burn in hell for all eternity.


When people start doing all these for the spaghetti monster and the fairy godmother, then i would start attacking it but until then, i would attack the fairy tales that affects the human condition.

Jacksonville:
Steer clear, if you are blind to the truth. Don't mix me with your ignoramus mockery tendency. Mind you, i have what it takes to make you actualise a rethink. If only you could look beyond your limited imagination, you could be doing yourself more good than harm.

You don't get me, don't be confused. The truth was written in black and white from meditation through GOD's angelic ministration. Who are you to question GOD? Just because you don't behold such anointing to comprehend the works and word of GOD, doesn't mean others should be like you...

Believe what you want, but let your eyes be open and let your ears be open. The truth of life we seek is at our finger tips...

Smh...

Richirich713:
But that's not what the op was assessing, he was comparing theists claims (regardless of whether they true or not) with atheist claims, and instead of addressing wat theists actually claim, he just "made up" claims for them which they themselves wud never have claimed.

Can list the number of "made up" claims in the op apart from "God can come from nothing" which might be a miswording but nevertheless portray the same idealogy of special pleading...

winner01:
Christian Logic: It has been proven that the universe had a beginning, the known dimensions of the universe include time and space. And these sprang into existence with the universe. Human, who are a product of the universe, absorb, reinforce and reflect within the CONFINES of time and space. What was in existence before time and space does not fit into the human brain. It cant even be called nothing. The human idea of nothing is a part of time and space.
Whoever was acting before the universe began is not subject to time (timeless) and space.
When something is timeless, it is eternal i.e no beginning, no end.
To ask who created an eternal being is to assume that this being is confined by time. But we know time has a beginning. We are talking of a God before the beginning. An Eternal God.

Yes, the universe had a beginning,but to assume that whatever started the universe was an eternal intelligent being is a very wild speculation. There are far more better explanations like it being a fluke accident in a 11-dimensional hyperspace, or two universes colliding, or even a mother universe spliting into half. How can you invoke intelligence where intelligence has no means of entering?

Christian Logic : Life really cannot come from non-life, every scientific evidence has pointed us back to the fact that life can only come from pre-existing life forms. The existence of life and available evidence defies all known scientific theories attempting to prove its origin. It is rational enough to believe that life came from the Giver of life

Stop playing a word game, Life came from non-life in the bible

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. KJV

So you end up in the same position where the scientists are, the only difference is that you are fine that life formed from dust, while science is trying to get "the real truth", how organic chemistry would interact to create a self-duplicating system.


[

b]Christian Logic[/b]: There is no evolutionary need to mutate into a man, because it has greatly lowered the reproductive capabilities and reduced the chances of survivability of our species. The lower life forms such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa that we supposedly evolved from are sexless and far more prolific. If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can’t we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?
Also, before men allegedly mutated from women, how were the women reproducing, since they needed males to fertilize their eggs and ensure their continuity?
It takes greater faith to believe in nonsense than sense. Christians believe that God created male and female beings, and each of these reproduces after their kinds.

Bonus: Instead of calling the nipples useless, just say we dont know its importance yet, like you claimed in your second logic. Learning is an ongoing process, do not demonstrate infinite knowledge.

To clear things up, sexual reproduction first arose about 550 million years ago, so you can see why we know very little about its origins. Modern man didnt mutate from modern woman, thats a very silly thing to say, the idea is that male forms were the mutated sex, and it happened when reproduction was very simple, due to evolution, sexual organ have become more complex thus resulting to sex for reproduction. I do not demonstrate infinite knowledge but Evolution explains why men have tips, creationism does not, not just human tips, other primates also have tips, so it has to explain theirs too.

I would be waiting...

Christian Logic: The statement/conclusion that science is the best route to knowledge is in itself unscientific and unproven.

So we can see that such statement is a philosophical premise, not a scientific conclusion. The only way to definitively prove that science explains everything would be to have exhaustive knowledge of all reality, and then be able to explain (using only scientific data) what all reality is and what it means. Such a feat is impossible. Therefore, the belief that science is the best source of knowledge must be accepted on faith, since it cannot be verified through testing.

Also we need to ask why knowledge better is than ignorance since nothing matters. Atheists may respond that if you believe wrong things or don’t know enough about your environment, you’re less likely to survive and flourish. But this explanation only applies to a small amount of scientific knowledge. There is little survival value in knowing, for example, the complicated workings of time-space theory, or the genus of certain insects, or the distance from Jupiter to Mars. All of these facts are pursued by scientists as being intrinsically valuable, yet they offer little information that can help guarantee a species’ continued existence.

The real explanation is that scientists pursue these facts because there’s intrinsic value in knowing what’s true about the world, regardless of how much help it gives us. Human beings believe knowing is better than ignorance because they believe truth is better than falsity, and light is better than darkness. But where does such a conclusion come from? Not from scientific principles. Science itself offers no self-evident account for why it should be pursued. You cannot study science hard enough to understand why you should study science at all.

We have had cilivilation for about 5000years prior to science, and where were we and then boom, science comes, and in just 500years, look what we know and what we have accomplished. If thats not evidence enough for you, then i dont know what else would suffice.

Then your second part is alot of claims that doesnt hold any evidence for a creator.

You asking why know the truth if its all for nothing is like asking why watch a movie if you know its all fake!, people watch movies, that doesnt mean there is a creator who imbed that in them, then why do you assume a creator for the former?

Well acquiring knowledge has been part and parcel of human evolution, we are naturals at wanting to know, it must have been an evolutionary aid in the past, it has gotten stuck to us now and we are building on it like every other quality we got from evolution(love, laughter, sorrow, aggressiveness e.t.c)

Christian Logic: The universe cannot create us to live, suffer and die. It does not follow. Mindlessness does not create mind.
There is a strain we feel everywhere, between the forces of ; Good and evil, Success and failure, Truth and err, Light and darkness and ultimately life and death. The contention of these forces are evident in our world. If death or any of those elements listed above is simply natural like everything, atheists wont contend with christians for the truth. Everyone seems to value truth even when some proclaim that the universe cares less about our truths or error. The atheists contention for the truth defies their claims of naturalistic purposelessness.
If humans did not arise by any known natural process, its makes sense to disregard death as a natural process.

You cannot dictate what you want from the universe or not, the universe doesnt give a damn about what you want, its a brutal fact, your inability to comprehend that fact is why you are so religious and i get that but i would say and always say that it is better to accept reality for what it is than to have delusions no matter how reassuring they are.

There is enough proof that there was a global flood. Reasonable people are somewhat slaves to proof. All available evidence points in the direction of a Creator.
If you really believe the universe is all there is, the truth or falshood wont mean so much to you.

Where exactly is this enough proof?

4everGod:
[/b]



To the highlighted. Since you have attested to the fact that you do not hold all the explanations yet why then do you believe in evolution as a final authority when it is yet to have all the answers? Refer to your last words.

Is a fact based on conclusion or inconclusiveness? Better yet, is something right even when it is not fully proven or is it right after it has been fully proven?

If you are a detective solving a case, you get to a crime scene, see a dead body with gun shots in the back, but no gun, what would be your theory of this victims death?

Obviously a homocide!, Now you cant explain the motive, you dont know the type of weapon, and you most certainly dont know the killer, but because you cant explain all this things, does it automatically makes your theory incorrect?

The periodic table is an arrangement of the chemical elements, organized on the basis of their atomic numbers, electron configurations and recurring chemical properties. Elements are presented in order of increasing atomic number. The standard form of the table consists of a grid of elements, with rows called periods and columns called groups.

The history of the periodic table reflects over a century of growth in the understanding of chemical properties. The most important event in its history occurred in 1869, when the table was published by Dmitri Mendeleev.

What does this have to do with what you asked, you might ask, well look at it this way, In 1869 when mendeleev created the table, there were lots of elements missing, but because of what he understood from the ones he had found, he could accurately and confidently predict the properties of the missing elements.

After years and improvement in technology, many of those elements were discovered or synthesized and all of them were just as were predicted.

Now Evolution is not as similar as the periodic table, but it shows some gaps in our knowledge, we dont know everything and thats why we have science and why people are working on it day and night to answer the questions, but when you deem a theory wrong because it cant yet answer some strange questions, Everything would be wrong because you certainly wont get anything right.

hahn:
Op, you need Jesus.

God gave you the the life you have

Lol, bro, with a logic like that, i am tempted o

I dont know why Atheists here keep arguing with many theists, its a fruitless exercise, they obviously have a far more superior logic than you do

here are a few:

Atheist Logic : [s]it is possible for the universe to come out of Nothing[/s]
Theist Logic : That's nonsense, something cannot come from Nothing, but God can come from Nothing and can create the universe from Nothing.


Atheist Logic : [s]Life arose from organic chemistry from a process we dont understand yet[/s]
Theist Logic : That's absolute nonsense, Life cannot come from Non-life, Life just appeared magically by the command of God


Atheist Logic : [s]Humans evolved slowly from primitive animals[/s]
Theist Logic : That's total Bulls crap, Where is the evidence?, No, Humans were formed magically from dust by the command of God.


Atheist Logic : [s]Men mutated from Women, we all started female, and thats why men have two useless nipples.[/s]
Theist Logic : Thats so illogical, Women were formed from one rib of a Man, that makes more sense and far more logical


Atheist Logic : Science is the best route to Knowledge
Theist Logic : That seems fair only if it corresponds with what some goat-herders wrote thousands of years ago.


Atheist Logic : Death is a natural process of life
Theist Logic : Thats nonsense, There was originally no death(except for all other animals and plants and insects and pretty much all life), then man sinned against God, then we started dying like the rest of them...who can argue with that logic?


Atheist Logic : [s]We had the ice-age a few thousand years ago[/s]
Theist Logic : Thats nonsense, There was a global flood that killed the dinosaurs,mixed salt-water and fresh-water together, killed all life except for the once on a boat...Thats far more logical


How can you win with such an impressive display of logical prowress?

4everGod:
Speak for yourself when you say you are an animal and not for humanity. You support Darwinism and Darwin Himself said man is a WILD animal and you only accept the animal part and not the WILD part? How come?

Every Human is an animal whether you like it or not. Darwinism is not a thing, he profound a very helpful insight that changed the way we see ourselves, the world and our place in it and we would be forever grateful but he isnt a priest or a pastor or an imam that should be worshipped, or that every single word from his mouth or writing is an unarguable fact. Then lastly, its as simple as ABC, wild means in Natural habitat, we are obviously in artificial habitats and environments, Wild doesnt apply to majority of humans in this present day and age.

honourhim:
What you will ask yourself is-

Did you create yourself?

No i ddnt...but your question is based on a faulty premise, "I was created"

Did you ask to be created?

No i ddnt, but then again 'Faulty premise'

Was your permission sought for before you were created?

I wasnt created...

what makes you think our opinion about whether God possesses the qualities to be worshiped or not matters?

Yes it does, if truly there was a God and he did create us with free-will, then i wonder why you would even ask that question!, are you forced into loving something or is it compulsory you love something because its just compulsory?, Do you choice to love something and if you do, what were the reasons for you loving that thing?

Are we (the created) the ones that will set a benchmark that will determine who God(the creator) should be or not be?

No, God can be anything he wants to be, it makes no difference to me, but if he wants my worship, he should be deserving of it...

There are things we dont have power over so the best thing is to play according to the rules put down since your opposition wont change anything.

Wrong Answer...
If the blacks in America during the Civil Rights Movement played by the rules, they would still be in segregation by now.
If our founding fathers played by the rules, Nigeria would still be a colony of Britain
If Europe allowed Germany played by their rules, all of Europe would have been enslaved, black and jews would have been killed in the millions.

Your ideology of play according to the rules in the face of tyranny is pathetic and you should be ashamed of yourself

Remember that the worship of God is not compulsory

Yes its not, Except if you dont, you would burn in Hell for all of Eternity...what a loving God indeed!

honourhim:
Have you asked yourself this- What if it is in God's eternal nature to create both what he likes and what he hates? Who defines what qualifies God to be God? is it we the created? So what makes you feel that if God is not all loving as you want him to be then he is not God? Since he allowed evil to come into the world then he is not God?

True, i agree

He very much would still be God, but if a God allows evil, then why worship him in the first place

johnydon22:
This sounds more like an unfair, unjust, disturbing and infantile criteria.

"Here is a story, a man born of a virgin woman died on the cross to die for your sins even though you don't exist yet"

then you are expected to either believe it [no matter how ridiculous it sounds] or burn forever..

Believe me i reward you, if you don't you burn - seems like a very severe ego issue.

More like GOD is offering salvation from his very own orchestrated wile?

Is it really salvation or just an example of forcful coercion to derive belief?

If the same person offering you salvation is same person going to hurt you in the first place, it's not salvation but rather abusive blackmail.

Makes one wonder "Did any God make such plan or is this just a genius plot of a few who wants you to believe what they want you to believe"

Christopher Hitchens called it "Divine North Korea"

winner01:
Those things that makes sense to man may not always be right.
You may be married to your wife for 10 years and rationalize the urge to find a younger babe to satisfy your desires. It may make sense to you but its not right.

It does not matter what our wishes are. It does not matter what seems rational to us. The universe created us to live suffer and die, according to the atheists. This in itself is not rational. There is no reason why we should live then if man is damned in hopelessness.

There is even no reason why you are typing this cos the universe that allegedly created you cares less if you believe in truth or falsehood.

There is a need in man that clings tightly to purpose even when he denies the reality of purpose. That is a good proof for the existence of a Creator.

Sorry, wrong proof

Because you want something to be true, doesn't make it true...

Because you want something to have purpose, doesn't mean it has purpose...

And because man clings to the idea of hope and blissfulness, doesn't by all means these things exist...

My simple answer is No, its not rational to believe in such...

We are alive and we know we are alive because we are conscious, so as long as we are conscious, we are in some way alive. The main issue is that consciousness resides in the brain and it has not been proven that it can reside anywhere else. So as painful as it can be, it is expected that consciousness would cease when the brain dies. There has been no reason whatsoever to think that it can somehow survive the death of the brain. So it would be irrational to go on believing in something that has no basis...

flamingREED:
Nah_

I'll say a thing like this:

Every deviation and scientific ignorance,
I come against you as I step into this laboratory in the infinite grace of God_

Amen.

SMH

Humanity is doomed if all scientists thinks like you...

flamingREED:
So, you don't know that there are scientists who go to church?


The mission of such scientists is to clandestinely uproot evolution holding it cascading in midair for all to see until it dries up and is committed to a candle flame.

You wonder why Einstein refused to submit to quantum physics in the name of God by saying,
"God does not play a dice."

Some think that scientists don't fear God_

Some of them hate evolution with passion_

When exactly did i say scientists did not go to church?

You people just believe that once someone accepts evolution, the person is an atheist, thats a wrong mentality...

Einstein refused to accept Quantum mechanics because he wanted the universe to be ordered and beautiful, but when does the universe gives a damn about what you want? Einstein was as wrong as it gets, the Standard model has been proved complete with the discovery of the Higgs boson. I am sure if he was alive today, he would have taken a bow and conceded. Thats what real scientists do.

Finally, if you want to worship God, thats your business, nobody stops you, but as a scientist, when you get into the lab, you drop your religion at the door and carry out your experiments objectively.

felixomor:
No worry,
Na turn by turn.

Everyday for the thief,
One day for the Owner.

Lol, continue waiting

While at it, also hope they disprove:

The General theory of Relativity
Germ theory
Heliocentric model
and so on...

smh

KingEbukasBlog:
You do realize that understanding the theory does not mean it actually happened . Don't get it twisted . We have lots of people who are cognizant of the theory and can refute it comfortably . At least the theory helped shape my understanding of progressive creationism . Well , thank God for science myths .

First of all, Understanding the theory makes you know what its says and what it doesnt say, thereby preventing you from saying things like "if its true, why dont i grow wings and tail"...

Secondly, Evolution is as well documented as the life of Napoleon, No serious Scientist argues about its validity.

4everGod:
An error correcting system? Todays world is governed by information and curiosity and like you Atheists say...Proof! So it has nothing to do with any error correcting system. Dont worry you will be hearing about more pretty soon same way the below list were also debunked.

This is a testament of your misconception about the processes of science

Fleischmann–Pons’s Nuclear Fusion

This was a false experiment carried out by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons into whether electrolysis of heavy water on the surface of a palladium (Pd) electrode produces physical effects that defy chemical explanation. They claimed lot of positive results from the experiment.

Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.

Thats what i mean by Error-checking

Phrenology

This is an outdated pseudomedicine that was popular in the 19th century, Science has sinced proved it wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

The Blank Slate

Luminiferous Aether

Einstein’s Static (or Stationary) Universe

Martian Canals

Phlogiston Theory

The Expanding or Growing Earth

Discovery of the Planet Vulcan

All this theories were either based on incomplete evidence or no evidence at all, Present day Evidence has been able to nullify all of them, thats what science does, it does not hold any theory as absolute truth, once better evidence comes that disproves older theories, its discards them as fast as you can say "Robinson Jack".

Spontaneous (or Equivocal) Generation

I had to blow up the last one emphatically and you know why?

Spontaneous generation or equivocal generation is an obsolete principle concerning the origin of life from inanimate matter. The hypothesis was brought out by Aristotle who advocated the work of earlier natural philosophers. It was proven wrong in the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, drawing influence from Francesco Redi who was an early proponent of germ theory and cell theory.

Still back to evolution.

Spontaneous Generation is far different from Abiogenesis, the former claims that complex animate life just suddenly popped out from inanimate matter, that has been long disproved. Abiogenesis on the other hand focuses on how organic chemistry interacted to create a self-duplicating sustaining system(a form of archaic simple life).

Please get your facts straight, and moreover, why isnt Evolution in that list?

I would answer it for you, because like

Heliocentric model
Germ theory
Special theory of Relativity
General Theory of Relativity
Standard model
Big bang theory

and many other established science, Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has enough evidence that no serious scientist argues about it anymore.

4everGod:
If evolution was real by now we would have some micro evolution like multi skin pigmentation or finger nail texture change or eye lashes falling off or men with 36 teeth. Ironically those are called defects and not an evolutionary process. I wonder why.

You dont really understand it at all and funny enough,you dont want to learn...

4everGod:
Thats not the point. The point is, why was it accepted as part of mans evolutionary process without initial proper checks? It was obviously based on personal recognition.

If it was based on personal recognition then that means there are possibly other scientific submissions about evolution that were also accepted without necessary checks.

This is why we say that SCIENCE NEVER LIES BUT SCIENTISTS DO!

I agree, but the beauty of science is having an error correcting system... it was still scientists that exposed it as a hoax, so if another was forged also, i am certain it would have been exposed by now...

Its like you ddnt read the article

The human-like skull fragments and an ape-like jaw, complete with two teeth, shook the scientific world in 1912 but were exposed as a hoax in 1953.

They just found out who was the person that forged it, it has nothing to do with Evolution, stop looking for holes where there are none...

[quote author=4everGod post=48344345][/quote]K

[quote author=4everGod post=48343768][/quote]You are really beginning to piss me off...

I asked a simple question, that you have been biting around the bush, when did i tell you i was a geography major?, I cant know everything and if you were to come to my field, i most certainly would know lots of terminologies that you werent familiar with, that doesnt mean i would concluded that you are stupid or something and can never understand it...
I never for once claimed to know about geography, i only asked a simple question, if an unusual stopping of the earth happened that made one side of the earth have longer day, why ddnt the other side of the earth with longer night notice and record that weird event, and you are here giving me geography lesson...is that what i asked?
If you cant answer, then say so instead of speaking big words in geography to puff your chest.

Nb: what does the moon gravitational effect has to do with the biblical account of the sun standing still?

If not because of my code of not steeping low, i sincerely would have insulted you because you obviously dont know how to talk...just saying

[quote author=4everGod post=48342469][/quote]Dont dare to tell me midnight sun is an unusual event, that would be dishonesty, you are just trying to cover the problem by saying other parts of the world sometimes dont receive sun, thats not whats i asked you, The event of the sun standing still was an unusual event, it wasnt a pattern, the opposite effect would obviously be unusual, it would be something the inhabitants havent experienced before, they likely would have recorded it. Your alaska example is
1. Not at the opposite side of the world with Jerusalem.
2. The midnight sun is a regular event that happens every six months

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun

Thats not enough to spark any inhabitants as being unusual, what is there that you just cant understand?, sincerely its tiring and you would start acting like you flawed me...smh


Emperor Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 CE until his death in 337 CE, used what motivates many to action - MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the "word of God" into existence. The Church leaders didn't finish editing the "holy" scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed. Therefore, one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use.
My point is that there was obviously no divine command in the building of the canon, it was debated by people and obviously the best debaters won...

Double post

[quote author=4everGod post=48340265][/quote]It seems like you dont understand the meaning of UNUSUAL, so i would close the chapter there.

As for the books of the bible, you do acknowledge that what made the cut was what this men saw fit to make the cut. I really dont have the strength to get into the details but the bottomline is your word of God is only the word of God because it got chosen as the word of God by a council...so much for being the word of God...

Scholar8200:
Where did I say it is figurative?Search and answer which of the days 1-7 was that which was without form and void created?


Nice analogy that differentiates mental assent/head knowledge from personal encounter! Besides, I would have seen his (Obama's) pictures so that claim of non-existence will fall flat.

Consider this:

A: Have you seen Obama before?
B: No,but I have heard about him.
A: Do you realise he doesnt exist?
B: That cannot be!!! I saw his pictures!
A: And how are you sure what you saw was not photoshopped? How are you even sure that the picture you saw was actually Obama?
B: (confused)

Then:
A:Have you seen Obama before?
C: Yes!
A: Do you realise he doesnt truly exist?
C: I was at the white house to conduct an interview with him (shows A videos and memoirs) so what are you talking about?
A: (speechless)

The first scenario depicts those who claim they know God simply because they gave mental assent to some statements. Someone comes and throws doubts and they are helpless.
The second shows one who had an encounter hence no one can overthrow his faith but him(some have done this when they became angry with God perhaps because He wouldnt gratify a lust which He knew was not the best for them).

No one can say he knows God based on a mental assent to some stated facts! It takes an encounter with Him made possible by His revealing Himself not to our senses (eyes, ears etc) but to us.

How did you become a fervent Christian without an encounter with God?By just a mental assent to some religious statements?


This is why I started the way I did but you attacked with 6000/4.6 Billion years! Without understanding where you are coming from, I would discuss based on an assumption of who you are which might be wrong!

Look bro, i just got back from work, i dont wanna do a tug of war with you, if you have a point make it and stop analysing whether i knew God or not...

Scholar8200:
Where did I say it is figurative?Search and answer which of the days 1-7 was that which was without form and void created?


Nice analogy that differentiates mental assent/head knowledge from personal encounter! Besides, I would have seen his (Obama's) pictures so that claim of non-existence will fall flat.

Consider this:

A: Have you seen Obama before?
B: No,but I have heard about him.
A: Do you realise he doesnt exist?
B: That cannot be!!! I saw his pictures!
A: And how are you sure what you saw was not photoshopped? How are you even sure that the picture you saw was actually Obama?
B: (confused)

Then:
A:Have you seen Obama before?
C: Yes!
A: Do you realise he doesnt truly exist?
C: I was at the white house to conduct an interview with him (shows A videos and memoirs) so what are you talking about?
A: (speechless)

The first scenario depicts those who claim they know God simply because they gave mental assent to some statements. Someone comes and throws doubts and they are helpless.
The second shows one who had an encounter hence no one can overthrow his faith but him(some have done this when they became angry with God perhaps because He wouldnt gratify a lust which He knew was not the best for them).

No one can say he knows God based on a mental assent to some stated facts! It takes an encounter with Him made possible by His revealing Himself not to our senses (eyes, ears etc) but to us.

How did you become a fervent Christian without an encounter with God?By just a mental assent to some religious statements?


This is why I started the way I did but you attacked with 6000/4.6 Billion years! Without understanding where you are coming from, I would discuss based on an assumption of who you are which might be wrong!

Look bro, i just got back from work, i dont wanna do a tug of war with you, if you have a point make it and stop analysing where i knew God or not...

4everGod:
Have you ever bothered to find out where Alaska is in comparison to Gibeon (Jerusalem) and how the summer solstice affects both? Alaska experiences 24 hours darkness but we would not call it night its more like night time in the afternoon and lasts for 24 hrs. In the parts of Alaska above the Arctic Circle, it is dark 24 hours per day for about 67 days during winter. Conversely, it does not get dark for about 80 days during the summer in the same area, a phenomenon known as the "Midnight Sun."




This is where your reasoning fails. Even common sense would have told you that if as they read and researched all the pages of scripture available to them that they would have been noticing some repeated similar occurrences from different writers which is why i used "probability" in my other response.

Even they would have to use "reference" to filter the books and the books are references to themselves so if there is a book which they can find no reference to its content in any of the other books then its an anomaly.

What does the southpole have to do with the middle east?

Smh

How can you possibly know what this people were thinking 1600years ago?

Its obvious you dont know much about this, ever heard of the gospels of peter and thomas, what could be the anomaly in that?

Stop assuming and get your facts straight...

Scholar8200:
Read that chapter again, there is nothing said about the day when that which was without form and void, was created!

This is classical religion not accepting its wrong...

When science disprove something in the bible, it becomes figurative...

Another hasty generalization! You said you were seeking for God and that you commenced by seeking for Him through reading the Bible .Then you said you were a fervent christian. Now you say you knew God!!!(Whom you were seeking through a 'long and tedious' but unproductive process!)

Remember you said this:


Am i not in order then? I suggest if there was a mistake in your previous posts, acknowledge it so we can move forward!

Why are you keen on twisting my words?

I would assume you havent met barack obama in person, and thats a safe assumption, Now imagine this scenario, you have heard about him, you know him to be the president of america but never seen him, then all of a sudden, someone tells you that he doesnt exist, you cant believe it, its impossible, the person asks you, have u seen him before, you say no, then you start to think to yourself, it could be true, alright, you make up your mind to find him, then you go to america and d white house to see obama in person...


Now from the above scenario, does you goin to find him diminish the fact that you knew him?

Please, be intellectually honest...