DrLiveLogic's Posts

Nairaland Forum › DrLiveLogic's Profile › DrLiveLogic's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (of 8 pages)

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is Faith Really? by DrLiveLogic(m): 5:22pm On Aug 03, 2020*

Tamaratonye1:
Examples please? I don't know what you're talking about here

I apologize for my earlier laziness, I had thought you'd be diligent enough to do the fact-finding yourself, but since you keep repeating this blatant lie, I have decided to take the pains and do the heavy-lifting myself (credits to the due sources), so it’s finally time to break out the ordnance to demolish your bullshit. Given the post count limit enforced here, this will be a multi-part exposition. (Edit: Unfortunately, due to the Nairaland spambot removing my expose on the papers, I'll do well to shorten my rebuttal to a reasonable extent)

However, before moving on to the heavy artillery, I’ll provide a brief exposition of the biological species concept, which is applicable here. The biological species concept is a population concept (as indeed are many other evolutionary concepts), and can be summarised as follows …

A population comprises a species, when:

[1] All members thereof (bar occasional mutants) are reproductively interfertile with other members of the population;

[2] All members thereof (again, bar occasional mutants), when mating, produce offspring that satisfy [1] above.

This provides the foundation for understanding speciation processes. I’ll describe a simple case thereof, while noting that more complex cases, such as ring species, also exist, which properly deserve their own complete post.

The simplest case of speciation occurs when the population undergoes a split for some reason, resulting in two new populations, both sharing the same ancestors, but between which gene flow has ceased. That split can arise as a result of the emergence of a physical barrier, or a behavioural barrier, and instances of both are documented in the relevant literature (more on this later). Once that barrier exists, and gene flow between the two separated populations ceases, the populations start to diverge from each other genetically, and it’s possible for the astute to model this process by spending time writing the relevant code to simulate the process.

Among the genes that exhibit divergence in this respect, are the genes belonging to the Major Histocompatibility Complex family. These genes are responsible for such processes as the immune response, tissue typing, and compatibility of egg and sperm (the fertillin genes governing this last process are part of the MHC family), and these genes have been documented as undergoing mutational change at a rapid rate compared to many other organismal genes.

So, when a population is split into two, for whatever reason, the two populations begin diverging from each other, and that divergence encompasses the MHC gene family, including those all-important fertillin genes. The moment that divergence reaches the point where criterion [1] or [2] above fails to be met, a speciation event has occurred. While the fertillin genes are obvious candidates for this process, there exist other genes that are implicated in the speciation process, and have been documented in the literature as exerting the requisite effect.

Having provided a simple exposition of one operating mechanism (covering some of the others would require me to write a book exceeding 1,000 pages in length), it’s now time to look at the literature, which includes the following papers I'll provide in the second part of my post....

Did you not get me, Tamaratonye5 Tantrum? Can't believe you just used up all this space to explain subspeciation (within a species without gene pool expansion, GPE) and nada on trans-speciation(like gorilla to man by GPE). Consider the difference in speciation types first. I want you to move beyond just gathering accurate info to the independent processing and determination of whats and what nots from that through logic because you have that ability, else much of what you read would inform you and deform your thinking. Here, move beyond nomenclature and understand flow and concept.
If we call this process you describe, a formation of new 'species', that without GPE, can that account for mutation necessary for transforming a fish to a man, i.e. across species, from simpler to complex, which involves GPE, as in the evo rhetoric?
Like I've told you already, there are no new discoveries to drive an evo rhetoric against creationism. There's nothing on evolution you're presenting here to discredit creationism that has not already been debunked in that light.
Once again, and which, if only Judas1X was attentive in grammar classes, LMAO, would've gotten my point: evolution by adaptation and subspeciation is objective fact even IDers accept and can be theorised under ID. Anti-ID evolutionism as well has its theory from same, with many gaps, but neither can be directly extrapolated from present cases.
It's therefore capital pointless to keep trying to present any evolution case to discard ID and opt for evolutionism.
Rather ID has to be investigated exclusively while evolutionism seeks new findings to fill the gaps.
More importantly, faith, our subject, can only be investigated empirically as I've said once and again. So we should quit with endless circles and if you wish begin with my ten questions especially since it's obvious your old-man, self-acclaimed 'protector' isn't bold enough to, hence resorting to prove his superiority by tryna beat you at girlie tirades. Sure he remembers, I don't respond in kind plus I consider such insecurity and diversionary for obvious inability to face the ten questions. Just to prove my point, watch him come back with another mudslinging rant, still without the nerve to face them.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to solve the puzzle, how it's condescending to Judas, that I jestingly call Tam, Tantrum and he, old man, consistent with his calling me young lad and boy. Ah, that's it! - old age. LMAO! Must also be why he's forgot that evolutionism is a theory and not a law. Smh.

Judas1X:

[s][/s]
Bwaaaaaaa haaaaaa haaaa

If you don't know that speciation can and has been observed, not only in the fossil record, but also has been observed in real time in laboratory research, then you're not worth the sweat your ...

[b]DrDeadLogic, the only thing you have achieved is troll again, and lie again. I mean if you really can’t see that sentence "empirical validation of faith" is an hilarious oxymoron then that is very sad for you, but I am extremely skeptical, even after you have claimed the most moronic creationist balderdash of all: that evolution is just a theory, and nor a law. Sadly you fail to know how misinformed those claims are. Your ten questions were desperate pieces of gibberish

[b]You came in here in your High horse acting all condescending, using sly ad hominems like "Tantrum" and now "Old man"... stimulus .

Detected - exceptional chitchatting diversionary tendency.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Series- The Truth: Genesis. Is God Really Who We Think He Is? by DrLiveLogic(m): 7:16am On Aug 02, 2020*

Veeque, smh.
When your moniker was created just few days ago and your first post is anti-god, gives the feeling you're an agent with a fiendish agenda.
Second, when you think you can, by your loose critiques, turn away men from god, you present another platform to find out that he is god and you're a mere man because your ideology will be buried with time while men will continue seeking god forever until eternity.
Third, your 'intelligent' critiques are really just wishy-washy, unenlightened and despicably porous.
First, you're a man and cannot understand divine language. Did you ever ask why Adam had to sew leaves for a covering after eating, before god clothed him with hides. That means Adam morphed into something he wasn't which is our cursed form today. That was his spiritual death in an instant of eating and then less than a thousand years later which, FYI is one divine day, he died again, physically exactly as god said.
Again, it's because you're so dead that you do not see how pitiful, grotesque and crude our scientific achievements are compared to the life Adam had in Eden, apart from that they produce both little good and much evil at the same time, solutions and more problems, never ending the cycle of problems. But Adam had no problem in Eden, beat that!
I guess you also think god put the tree of good and evil in the garden, not knowing its origin is simply existence as existence breeds good and evil possibilities but only god never falls into the evil.

masterP042:
My question still is, what exactly has devil done wrong in the bible? What did he actually do to humans? Was he the one that created hell? Was he the one that created sicknesses and diseases, was he the one that punished humans for eternity... What did he actually do wrong?

surprised you don't know. What story have you been listening to. Satan darn created sin which created hell and death plus sickness and disease plus the tree of knowledge of good and evil and every evil thing.

joviegghead:
Hmmm.

Logical!

Not at all. Highly misinformed jargons.

joviegghead:
I would really love someone to answer this:

Who really is God?
Too many religions aim to explain him. But fail.. Miserably.

Depending on your fellow creature for that answer is high risk. You should believe that if there is individual accountability to god, then logically there must be the individual independent ability to determine the reality of God within each of us. Begin with your conscience which he gave you.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Random Musings On Religion. by DrLiveLogic(m): 7:55am On Aug 01, 2020

Dantedasz:
Christian's and Islamists are quick to warn you that you risk hell fire and everlasting punishment and torture unless you repent from what they term your evil ways. They want you to imbibe what they prescribe for you in their books of dogma so that you can go to heaven and recieve your reward of everlasting life or an uncountable number of virgins.
Their books apply a carrot OR stick doctrine of obey our book and go to heaven OR disobey our book and roast in hell.
Christian zealots are fond of saying it is better to believe their dogma and find out it is not true than NOT to believe their dogma and find out it is true and end up in hell.
The also apply the trick of threatening you to imbibe their dogma because you will die sooner or later and find out their dogma is true.
My simple point today is,DO YOU REALLY NEED A BOOK BEFORE YOU KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG?

Are your morals determined by a shiny black book written gazillions of years ago or are they inherently scrolled to your DNA from birth? Do you need a book to tell you if it is right or wrong to kill or steal.
Think about this !
From where comes your morality?

No. And god never told anyone they need a book to determine right and wrong. The conscience does that. And just as you believe in a conscience you can't see, it is possible to realise god without seeing him.
The reason for giving laws is that laws on a paper are like a document that's untampered with. However, just like you are imperfect, and imperfection affects your memory, intelligence and all. So does your imperfection tamper with your conscience, hence the need for a document for universal reference

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is Faith Really? by DrLiveLogic(m): 6:08am On Aug 01, 2020*

Tamaratonye5:
[1] Gravity and thermodynamics have been revised many times as well. Which kind of lets the air out of the tires of your argument, in my opinion

The theories/explanations of the concept of gravity, yes, which is my point exactly. A theory which is an explanation of the dynamics of observed phenomena, can be revised, improved on or rescinded. Only when a theory is proven to be all encompassing and irrefutable, does it become established fact like the doc I showed you. Laws, like reported speech, merely report observed phenomenon, and are an objective given.

[2] If you think speciation hasn’t been observed in nature, let alone reproduced in the laboratory, then I could find numerous scientific papers waiting to disabuse you of this fatuous idea.

Trans-speciation, which has never been observed, is the least criterion. Not adaptation/subspeciation.

1000WaysToLive:
Empirical validation of faith is easy.
Just look at all the people who travel to places like Lourdes each year in the sure hope of divine intervention to cure their ailments.
That’s evidence that those people have faith.
But the fact is, there’s absolutely no evidence that faith actually affects anything.

Welcome to the table. I've gotten exhausted from engaging many on this thread because they are not very good in holding logical, constructive, progressive discourse. That guy for instance, talks like we're in a market square, in the name of presenting cogent arguments. But if you'd keep to the rules of engagement of constructive discourse, I wouldn't mind engaging. What do you say?
@ the bolded is an illogical conclusion for many reasons.
You have assumed those people have faith because they claim to. Since faith is immaterial, it would be dangerous to think anyone has it just cause they say so.
I'll also assume you don't know the definition of faith by my book. Faith isn't blind belief or any belief at all, as usually claimed, though it creates beliefs. Faith is a substrate that can be realised by consciousness like a rock, water or matter in general. Science didn't determine these realities for us but consciousness. Science only went on to make sense and use of them. Rene Descartes said: "I think(am conscious), therefore I am". Goes without saying, whatever were conscious of is real. You are conscious of a moral meter/conscience, your emotions, desires and boredom, a will etc. and will never see any of these but you wouldn't say its blind to believe in them because they're undeniably real to your consciousness. Faith is only found in that same immaterial plane, hence illogical to demand scientific evidence of it.
None of us is born with it, but the search brings about its materialisation. It can never happen without one being conscious of it. So if you've never been conscious of it, you've never had it.
To begin the search, consider my Ten questions, after which when you answer all, I'll suggest a method for empirical validation of faith.
Note also that contrary to your belief, empirical validation of faith isn't easy at all, else all would have had. It takes good investment. And as to how faith affects reality, that can't be overstated, but first you'll have to meet a man of genuine faith not just one of blind belief.

1000WaysToLive:
Creationists and JWs, etc., love the laws of thermodynamics.
They like to tell people that evolution violates the second law because it runs in the opposite direction to entropy, therefore god.
They conveniently forget that the law applies to "isolated systems:, which fortunately the Earth is not.

Well, that's too bad for them. I don't see anyone who's presented such arguments here, do you?

Judas1X:
I just love it. DrDeadLogic's creationist method played out to perfection

1. Spew ignorant creationist rant, evolution is a great subject to use.
2. Get called out and corrected.
3. Claim superior intellect and double-down on ignorance.
4. Get called out again, have it explained to you in detail.
5. Spew more ignorance and insults.
6. Have views rightfully mocked.
7. Spew more ignorance and insults, claim victory and leave.
8. Wash, rinse, repeat.

You just so love the usual method of trying to justify your unwholesome unbelief by discarding creationist arguments, don't you? grin

. But with me you find I present you the option of empirical validation instead, your worst nightmare that reveals the truth of why you're an atheist - that you really don't want to ever find out that creator is real. So you're trying so hard that I would argue instead. But as I've said over and over, I will not present a single argument for faith but only show how to contact it. Anyone who argued for faith with you in the past was not learned about it. So once again, if you'd stop being so cowardly and face my simple Ten questions which is all I've presented to prepare you for the discovery of faith and after answering all, I'll present you with a method for empirical validation of faith. I'd bet my head, you'll again run with tails between your legs from them only to come back with another digressive rant as if any here is gullible. Like you lied before, I hadn't answered your questions. I challenged you to reproduce them because I had, you disappeared. Now more empty puffing again, just to avoid my questions. Aren't denialists always looking for who to blame, from scientists to religionists, for their nonchalance and unwillingness to research faith themselves. If I don't respond to you again, just know it's cos it ain't worth it. Means I see you're trying to drag me into circular chitchat while avoiding the crux of discussion.

Plus, my old man friend, experience has taught that your kind, if given the opportunity, always prove themselves. Just look at you messing up @law Vs theory all over the place. smh. Bet you didn't even know you almost made my point while also mixing everything up. LMAO.
Tantrum, in addition to the first two theories I gave you, also research how Einstein's theory overruled Newton's, by its more encompassing reach, but in all, the law of gravity, is constant and maintained. It's why I said theories are subjective but laws are objective and constant in their domain.
Plus, my old man, I'll also come demonstrate your conscience, will, emotions, desire etc. to you first before faith so you'll know you've got em. Keep on lazily transferring responsibility like a good couch potato, friend. Eternity's waiting for you.
And yeah, one last thing. For your respect's sake, some caring friendly advice below:

Judas1X:
Gravity is a theory… We have two usable theories of gravity, Einstein’s Theory and Newtonian Theory.

Thermodynamics? What is the theory of thermodynamics?

Thermodynamics , science of the relationship between heat, work, temperature, and energy. In broad terms, thermodynamics deals with the transfer of energy from one place to another and from one form to another. The key concept is that heat is a form of energy corresponding to a definite amount of mechanical work.

YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE Bleep YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Not only that you cannot tell the difference between a theory and a ‘Law’ Why don’t you just GIVE IT UP.

ALL SCIENCE IS WRONG. YOUR DIPFUCK ASSERTIONS ABOVE ARE ALL TRUE. [s]THEORIES ARE LAWS AND LAWS ARE THEORIES AND ANY WAY YOU DEFINE THEM IS PERFECTLY CORRECT.[/s]
NOW DEMONSTRATE YOUR GOD EXISTS.

Christianity Etc › Re: TECHNOLOGY!! - One Of The Greatest Proofs Of God! by DrLiveLogic(op): 4:34am On Aug 01, 2020*

Tamaratonye5:
Butthurt because your canards have been fed into the shredder? Such as your canards about scientific theories and scientific postulates? I was just trying to see if you truly understood what you blundered into going down this route. And you've proven to me that as far as this issue is concerned, you don't even cut the mustard here.

Aww! my huffy-puffy Tantrum. Take a moment and imagine all this was true. Oooh!, how awesome the feeling! LMAO
You're actually entertaining and funny, I mean your yowling tendencies coupled with feistiness. If you're married, your husband's definitely got a catch, never a dull moment with you.

Your claim begs the question; why ask scientific questions of me if you think I'm so ignorant?

Not ignorant, a bit informed but untrained. Actually, I'm only trying to help you see you can't stand on evolutionism for origins.

Here’s a test you can attempt in order to demonstrate otherwise:

[1] What is the rigorous definition of ‘implication’?

[2] Explain why the material conditional has to be deployed with care and diligence in any properly constructed logical derivation;

[3] Explain why the rules of passage for quantificational schemata work for the material conditional, but not the biconditional.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/12038443_20200630235919_jpegfe0a6db38807f0bac9ae647a3249ed5a
Derailing my thread while trying still to assert your knowledge, are you? Listen Tantrum, really don't need to. I don't consider you unintelligent. Stop trying to prove yourself. We all have our different fields and we all keep learning. Curious as to what yours is but I'm pretty sure you have full capacity to do well in it. Even in S&T, I know you will as well but only after proper training. Isn't that true of any discipline?
Your questions tho. LMAO in many ways. Plus asking me proves you not convinced inside you I lack the skill though you wanna pretend so. LMAO.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/12038444_1163350611329740tmpcam814236070jpeg05edf3a07216b1aadacbd45d8aa3872ajpegb81c4ac1f8c139e93be02de058dd054d_jpeg70f19482d315f47ff4b356b21ba3d1dd

But look, even if you've researched all those, it won't make you a logician. It's in the application of those and all tenets of logic that we test capacity. In designing systems, efficiency of written codes, deriving of formulas and relationships from theoretical concepts, your presentation of arguments and the likes that we test mastery of logic, not really worded explanations.
And what might slow you down tho in that, is your emotional volatility evidenced in unbridled use of cusses to pass your view plus some tendency for digression. You must learn to put those aside and strictly uphold logic protocol in a convo.
You know, If I were to employ you in my company, for now, I'd put you not in operations or R& D (until you're well trained), maybe marketing. You got passion and spark, you're feisty, you've got obvious interest in various themes, your verbosity would entertain prospective big time customers, your never-say-die attitude....,
but I'm actually interested in the security of your soul instead. So let's recap what we gathered in our convo.
[1] You're an atheist because you do not want to investigate the reality of creator for yourself, no man is responsible to determine his existence for you.

[2] You are in reality, an agnostic on origins, because science has not disproved ID nor validated the anti-creationist evo rhetoric on origins.(Natural selection, adaptation... validated). We only have theories not absolute laws on origins. Some go with ID, some Evo. This might interest you too

[3] Should you be willing to investigate origins/creator, you can empirically, using a method I'll suggest but first, try answering in all sincerity my Ten questions, including the last 3, which will not prove faith but open you up for the adventure of my method, when you're done or you can reject. Choice is yours.

[4] Faith will be realised in the same plane your emotions, desire, conscience lie, so don't wait for a scientific paper which is outside such scope.

[5] The general understanding of faith as blind belief by both religionists and non religionists is a misconception, going by the bible. Faith is a substrate which creator wants everyone to possess for themselves. Once you contact it, regardless what you've ever done or not done, you are reconnected to him. We all were nasty, ugly and all but those who've contacted faith, are restored by creator's mercies. He who seeks will find.

[6] Theories can get discarded and overturned with more learning. Laws are immutable in their domain. Some theories may graduate to immutability when necessary conditions are met.

[7] Everyone who thinks for themselves, not dependent on someone else's thoughts can tell that ID is self-evident in the universe. Even our bodies with specific parts each designed according to purpose, also maintaining uniformity, with aesthetic differences across the human race. Males having distinct features from females, each gender with conjugate parts. Also, procreative parts suited to each gender, plug and socket mould for perfect fitting towards procreation. Each cell with a defined function. Internal systems within it designed towards self-sustenamce with a seamless interconnection between each internal system as well as a perfect blending to relate with external matter. Damn! Ask anyone that designs robots and systems. The human body is the height of intelligence. So much so that we now model robots, NN after the human brain.
Asides, of course, the cycles in nature and the intergalactic systems. You'll work really hard and need great dose of denial to convince yourself otherwise, if you're intelligent.

Buh Bye
--------------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Tintilattus Tantrum

Wish you the best, my huffy-puffy Tantrum.

Christianity Etc › Re: TECHNOLOGY!! - One Of The Greatest Proofs Of God! by DrLiveLogic(op): 7:56pm On Jul 27, 2020*

Tamaratonye5:
Well I hate to say this to you, but you have now produced the two dumbest creatard canards there are.

I have to fucking laugh. How can you be this ignorant of basic scientific methodology and phrases, the mind boggles at such stupidity.

Did posting that trolling drivel make you feel good? Evolution remains an accepted scientific fact. If you had even a cursory grasp of the scientific methods and processes you’d have some inkling of how embarrassing your creationist rhetoric is, but like all the other creatards I’ve encountered you’re utterly closed minded. Unfortunate.
--------------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Tucktrumpet Tantrum

Ok, you win, if it makes you feel better. The cussing game that is. LMAO.
You trying to save face, with barrage of insults, LMAO, saw that. I wonder how many of your logic laws you break per day, Logic criminal Tantrum.

I would now like to engage others who have keen critiques to offer lest the thread gets derailed. Thanks for stopping by. We meet again somewhere.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is Faith Really? by DrLiveLogic(m): 7:49pm On Jul 27, 2020*

Vic2Ree:
[/quote][quote author=dragonflyy post=92164679]guy how do you manage to say so much, and end up passing zero meaning accross

dragonflyy:
that guy is blabbing pure pseudoscience. none of what he's saying has ever been validated by science! honestly one of the cringiest apologists I've ever seen. Jeez!!!

Nor will any of what I'm saying be validated by science. A simple reading my posts would have made that clear. An attempt at the Ten questions. would have helped you see that science only explains one domain of existence, our space-time universe, but points to a domain beyond it also. So if you believe science, you would believe there's a domain beyond science as it says of itself.
Faith is only found in the same domain your conscience and emotions are beyond science's domain but is experiential nonetheless like your conscience and desire.
You must answer the ten questions to begin researching faith is all I'm saying. That should be easy enough to understand. Ready when you are.

Judas1X:
If you think I'll let you dictate the pace of this convo, you're sorely mistaken. You answered nothing. You only made bare claims without evidence. Even you can't deny this. So keep asking people to support evolution with evidence when you can't do the same for ID. You're too boring for me to waste scathing expletives on

The onus to research faith is on y'all. I can't do it for you. Only he who seeks will find, Jer 29:13, Mt 7:7. That is the rules of engagement. The only valid question is how to find. The answer begins with a simple touch on this. Ten questions. These will not validate faith but create an awareness for the journey to begin.
When any is done, mention me again, we will discuss and I'll suggest a method to discover faith.

Tamaratonye5:
Christ on a bike but creatards are dumb. They'd rather suggest, but not provide empirical proof of faith.

Tantrum, my dear, as I said before, no shame in learning. I learn everyday too.
But if you keep attempting @ law Vs theory, you'll only keep revealing your lack of training in science.
Evolutionism is a just a theory else every single scientist must be bound by it. Science is not politics and not about numbers but is objective. LMAO. Consider.
Gravity, Upthrust, Thermodynamics, are laws, they don't get overturned. Evolutionism is a mere subjective attempt to make sense of objective findings. It is interpretation of facts. It's been revised over and over and will be revised many more times with new findings till we arrive at truth. Learn how theories are overturned with new theories, ma Theory Vs theory.
Natural selection, adaptation, common descent are validated. It is such evolution that every scientist accepts as fact, even ID crew. They can be theorised under ID exclusive of trans-speciation. Trans-speciation from Darwinism is a theory and has never been validated and is the bone of contention with ID crew.
As for faith, always learn to go to source when seeking true answers. Funny you quoted it first and now I expound on it, you shift goalposts to juxtapose from dictionary which can only explain material things. It's like checking an encyclopedia to know what heaven looks like. LMAO. Once again, faith, as defined by source viz. proven men of faith, Heb 11:1, will only be validated empirically, using a method I'll suggest to the one serious enough to answer all ten questions sincerely.

I think it was Muttleylaff who once said something like when they all come for you recycling unnecessary questions but avoid yours, know it poked them real good.
Well, it's all good seeing how you all stand up for each other and came to Tantrum's help. Something you only get to enjoy on this side of death, not in the afterlife. Perhaps you could all invite some more sincere atheists who might want to arrive at the experience of the substrate, faith, and aren't scared to look into these questions or you can keep going in your circles mentioning me if it makes you feel better.

Wish you all the best nonetheless.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is Faith Really? by DrLiveLogic(m): 12:00pm On Jul 27, 2020

Judas1X:
Issokay m'lady. Leave him to me. I know the method to his madness. Dude Is busy telling long tales but he doesn't know he started the insults
DrLiveLogic, I actually feel sorry for you. I haven't even started to think of attacking you verbally. You seem to be uneasy all of a sudden. Today's a busy day for me. Please endeavour to answer my questions before I return. If you think you've got lip, then you thought very wrong
State of peace indeed

Yawn!!

Please provide proof of the insults I started or add one more trouble to your conscience.
LMAO. It's funny how uneasy I seem to you or how you correlate peace and uneasiness.
As for your questions, you know this is a public forum, you're being watched so quit clowning around. Reproduce your questions and I'll again reproduce the answers since you pretend you missed them.
I will likely be free tomorrow, so come back later and either answer my questions or let be.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: TECHNOLOGY!! - One Of The Greatest Proofs Of God! by DrLiveLogic(op): 11:20am On Jul 27, 2020*

Tamaratonye5 Tantrum, you are just not trained in the SM. Laws are putting in words objective facts, hence remain objective. Theories are an attempt to explain the whys and can be offered in multiple plausible ways. This is why laws are immutable commensurate to their facts but theories are not but only subjective.
Again do a thorough study on both and may be try at least one scientific experiment involving both to truly comprehend else you'll keep missing the point.

I also like how you've found a way to escape the thread. It's all good, I'm tired of your circles too. At least you've learnt a few things including the false security of evolutionism. Go back and search for answers.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is Faith Really? by DrLiveLogic(m): 11:01am On Jul 27, 2020*

Judas1X:
Lol. Oboyee. It's the first time I'm hearing this one oo. Can you provide objective evidence of this "substrate" and how you contacted it bro? Your story interests me
As far as I know, you're the only boy with this understanding

I totally understand you, bro, but it also shows you've not been reading my posts and this is not a new understanding.
Heb 11:1-3 ...and faith is the substrate of what we hope for, the object of proof not seen(immaterial like your emotions, conscience...) because in it, the elders became witnesses. Faith makes us understand that the ages were structured by the utterance of God, to that the visible things did not become from visible things (the Singularity is pointing towards this).
Note these are only claims but can be validated. The quest begins from the questions and after introspection, a method will be proferred. All the elders were scientists, researching in the immaterial world while living in the material. The validity of that was determined in their personal search, not provided by another.

Really? This is coming from the same boy who keeps riding Tamara for not presenting objective evidence for evolution? Do you know what the terms "objective" and "evidence" connote.

The problem is you don't get the bane of logic. Understand axioms and self-evident truths. All logic derives from and builds on these not proving these. They are verified by consciousness, like virtually all matter, so with faith.

The truth is nasty, my dear failed logician. And the truth here is you want to bait us into considering your position using questions that appeal to ignorance instead of persuading us through the objective evidence. We see through the bullshit you've drowned yourself in, and if you think we'll jump into that pool of shit to play with you, you must be off your meds

Tamaratonye5:
I thought I was the only one who saw that. Yeah, though. His questions are disingenuous to put it mildly

No you weren't Tantrum, denial can give us the same lens and truth isn't nasty, dear old man friend. It's denial that causes torture, misrepresenting it. Plus your problem is you really came with a prejudice from whatever previous encounters you may have had with 'theists'. If you'd simply try read my posts, I never claimed uncertainty of evolutionism validates creationism. I have all through only tried to invalidate the false security in it and suggest empirical validation of faith.

It has not come to that nau
Young Man, if you they write exam, you go submit empty script con expect marker to mark am for you? Come on now, be a diligent young lad and attempt the questions I asked or forever be labelled a cowardly hypocrite.

Very well then, my senior old man friend and examiner, if repetitive use of boy, lad et al makes you feel more accomplished and superior. Just remember that I answered your questions for what they're worth(or not) and offered mine not to examine you actually but for self-examination. These questions don't validate faith, they can only lead you on the quest to resolve the unknown, like science. Faith will be validated only when contacted.

You've been displaying unparalleled arrogance on this thread. Maybe Tamara is too chicken to give you what you're asking for. Me, I have no qualms when it comes to delivering verbal artillery. Answer my questions boy.

Actually, you're yet to match Tamaratonye5's tirades. The reason they may look non-existent to you is because such are feckless in my world so I don't respond in kind. If you don't believe, give your best shot. And don't worry, this doesn't require logic, just mere experimentation, like faith. However, my demeanor is not arrogance but simply from a state of peace inside. Like I told her, I really wish her the best and on the quest of faith, I actually wish you all success from my heart of hearts but if you have no interest in researching faith matters the way I've suggested, let's not waste each other's time, I can plead no further or should I put a knife to your throat?
One love bro.

PS. I hope dragonflyy can see that Tantrum, doesn't want to drop it with her claims on evolutionism and she doesn't even know what we mean by code in DNA lol. Tantrum, ain't calling for help, you gave Daejoyoung a link, I offered him a refutation. That's how we arrive at a circumspect perspective but would you ever know that. LMAO.
Dear Tantrum, faith cannot be derived etymologically and certainly not by a dictionary because it is immaterial in nature. Only those who have the experience know what it really is. Try Paul up there.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is Faith Really? by DrLiveLogic(m): 9:19am On Jul 27, 2020*

Judas1X:
Imma add this one as well: Since you value faith so much, on what basis do you reject superfluous claims, OR are you just content believing anything they tell you based on faith?

Bro, don't take me in endless circles like Tamaratonye5. For the umpteenth and more time. Faith is not 'trying to believe' anything at all, it is a substrate of its own to be contacted. Can't you guys at least read the posts before mentioning me. First, throw away what you've ever believed about faith and come to that understanding. Plus you have no right to believe what can't be verified or to doubt what hasn't been disproved.
We wouldn't ask such a question if you didn't but wanted to believe about some fossil. We'd simply tell you where it is so you can go dig it up for yourself.
Second, I'm the one saying to throw away the evolutionism argument so we can investigate faith independently so why the unreasonable question as if I validate faith by discarding evolutionism. My approach is only to offer a method that leads to the realisation of the substrate, faith. But it's up to you to go on the journey. Only he who seeks, finds.
This same question, she brings up is therefore meaningless and invalid.

Given that you have been attacking the poor lady for evidence of evolution, how can you claim she's denying intelligent design when you've offered nothing to back up your claims, eh, O ye failed doctor of Logic??!

ID is self-evident truth, if we believe AI is intelligence at all. What are neural networks asides a replication of the brain? And if NN is considered intelligence as it replicates our brains. Do the math. It's not up to me to prove it nor will I try to.

Bros abeg attend to this:
I don't care for your meaningless questions that utilize ad ignorantiam fallacies to validate themselves as Tamara rightly pointed out. Anyways, I just have two questions for you

And I should care about yours for some reason. Well, too bad bro. Whatever you believe or don't believe doesn't affect me. If you're not willing to consider the questions on consciousness and the immaterial parts of yourself, the platform on which faith would be found, abandon ship immediately. No one's begging you to. It's not my soul we're talking about here. The questions are for the willing not the unconcerned and the onus to find answers is only on the owner of the soul.
Science is what it is today because men paid the price with their lives to verify certain unresolved questions they considered important.
Do have a nice day.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is Faith Really? by DrLiveLogic(m): 7:59am On Jul 27, 2020*

dragonflyy:
[s][/s]
she said she's not an evolutionist but you want to turn her into one by fire by force
Oya, see me here: I don't accept Evolution and I also don't believe in gods
Stop being a coward and provide evidence for the god you believe in instead of reversing the burden of proof
Bloody coward

dragonflyy:
Egbon free that small boy

He is asking you to defend an argument you never made. I wonder why you're even indulging him.

Now you come to her rescue? LMAO. Quit being a jerk, feigning you can't read and acting like a kid while at it if we're gonna have a convo. Act mature at least. I've been the one asking her that if she'll forget her defence of evolutionism, we can get into the more important route where faith is found but no, she keeps trying to claim it's fact and proven. Tamaratonye5 even unmeritoriously tries to deny ID. So what you trying to pull?
Well again, if you'd simply read, it's not my job or anyone else's to provide you with evidence for faith. creator put the innate ability in all his creation, else he would not be blameless in demanding individual accountability. The burden of proof lies on you solely. You wanna know about faith? You can try answering sincerely the ten questions, then as I've said a thousand times, ask the right question, on how to contact faith. If you want, you can then try what I would profer for yourself or abandon mission, your choice. Faith will only be found in the same domain your emotions and conscience are found, though superior in tangibility, not in the physical.

Judas1X:
Been observing your pitiful exchange with that lady with trepidation for your ability to say a thousand words at once without addressing a single point. Let me get this out of the way: Im not an evolutionist, biologist, physicist, or familiar with any of the natural sciences, so I don't get involved in those evolution back and forths that seemingly gives you erections.

Going through your posts, I can't see anywhere you managed to show a tiny little bit of evidence for all the thousand and one claims you have deployed on this thread. I don't care for your meaningless questions that utilize ad ignorantiam fallacies to validate themselves as Tamara rightly pointed out. Anyways, I just have two questions for you

If evolution is indeed wrong (let's assume for the sake of argument though), how does that evidence creationism?

Since you claim things lacking objective evidence should not be believed, why then do you believe in god? If you insist god exists, what objective evidence can you present to prove he exists?

Read the above.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is Faith Really? by DrLiveLogic(m): 2:25am On Jul 27, 2020*

Tamaratonye5:
No one asserted that we were intelligent. You asserted DNA was intelligent. If it was, wouldn’t it intelligently design more intelligently? It is a chemical process and nothing more

My bad. I asserted you were intelligent. If you have no intelligence, then you're right, DNA has none. Fits perfectly with your origins theory of intelligence stemming from non-intelligence, that we design AI.
DNA that writes code for the compiler that encodes itself, what AI seeks to achieve with deep learning, has no intelligence in Tantrum's world. I'd like to meet you in your world. Smh.

Since you’re the one denying a global scientific consensus based on over 160 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny

Don't you wish this would make a theory irrevocable, Mrs scientific method?
Most intense what huh

LMAO. You should study the many revisions and modifications of the theory.

As I already said the talkorigins TO website has a massive database of scientific evidence for evolution. It also has a massive database of creationist propaganda that science has debunked, most of them you have used here.

Cc: Daejoyoung
Smh. Laughable when someone suggests TO for critical study on evolution, and shows you're neither a core scientist nor ready for in-depth analysis but only gathering unfiltered superficial info. You probably occupy yourself with other things leaving you little time for such although that wouldn't be an excuse for a matter as important as your soul's security. For your sake, here's the fastest of the critiques on TO I found not that I propose creationism for that. Refute TO
TO is pure propaganda and uses counters against flimsy and outrageous creationist arguments to validate its argument, mere strawmanning, without presenting important info on the uncertainties and limitations of the evo theory but many half-truths instead. Prolly why it seems obsolete.

Again there's nothing like overwhelming evidence/proof for evo rhetoric but only many findings with subjective interpretations. Such misconception stems from a lack of training in the scientific method.
Again, evolutionists consistently shift the goalpost by alternating the definition of evolution between mere adaptation and trans-speciation, an interpolation from prejudice, to make findings like the fossil record support their rhetoric, as is not the case.
You really should go do a thorough study on evolution from both sides of the arguments. That alone will help you understand why Darwinian evo is not proven but only accepted by a camp.
Such is not the case with logically deduced facts and laws which every scientist must accept without argument.

FYI, I'm not an atheist because I believe in evolution. That's your own Dreamland.

FYI, stale and overused.

I'm an atheist because of the lack of evidence for god/s
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

What you tell yourself to feel better. You're an atheist cause you don't want to ever investigate the validity of creator for loosing your freedom and having accountability. If you attest to the reality of your emotions, conscience etc. you can't see or touch, you can relate with creator that exact way. Faith is a more tangible substrate than these. The question is if you're willing to.

The fossil evidence alone establishes this

The fossil record establishes common descent and adaptation not trans-speciation.

SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED BY OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, THEY CAN ONLY BE FALSIFIED BY THE SAME. WHEN A CREATARD GETS A NOBEL PRIZE FOR FALSIFYING EVOLUTION I WILL ACCEPT IT, BUT CREATIONISM WILL REMAIN AN UNEVIDENCED SUPERSTITIOUS MYTH.

I almost applauded you but oops!, missed a spot. The interpretation by evolutionists will have to first be established by the findings without prejudiced interpolation, letting facts interpret themselves.

What singularity?

Since you don't know about it, don't bother. Just know that science has proposed a point where our current space-time logic disappears.

Even your title seems confused. If something is valid, isnt it meant to be logical?How are questions valid if they are beyond logic, and therefore by definition irrational, that’s such an obviously errant title I want to laugh out loud.

Laugh less, when in ignorance, I'd suggest, dear Tantrum. Validity is tied to reality/existence. Logic derives from self-evident reality and towards deduced reality. Go figure!

Why on earth would any rational person want to pursue a quest for faith as well, faith is utterly useless for validating claims, as there is literally nothing you could not believe using faith, as I have already explained.Rubbish, you don’t half talk drivel. The best method we have for validating claims is the scientific method
And as I said there is literally nothing you cannot believe using faith. So yes of course faith based beliefs are irrational by definition. The efficacy of logic is manifest, as is the uselessness of faith. As I keep asking what is your criteria for disbelief if you are prepared to believe using faith?

Faith is utterly useless if you believe it's blind belief, and well, that's blind belief too because you could find out what faith is but choose not to.
The undergirding yardstick of reality is consciousness. Whatever we're conscious of is self-evident reality. Learn girl, these are not derived by logic but from which we develop logic to deduce derived realities. This is why faith, like matter, isn't to be logically deduced. A little baby knows mama is real because it's aware of her not because of systematic deductions. We similarly know the universe is real, not by logic but by our consciousness of it.
So the substantiality of faith, like our universe, is in consciousness not in logic. The question must be 'how to contact'. It is not about believing any claims but about contacting a tangible substrate. If one weren't and is busy convincing himself of anything, he is still faithless.

logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, in order to remove bias and flawed reasoning.

You're well informed but need training to correctly apply it.

Let us now reconsider the ten questions of which for reasons best known to you, you avoided the all important final three.
Ten questions
I cannot answer these questions for anyone but any who would understand faith must answer these himself and then ask how faith is to be contacted, like his emotions are.
Tantrum, over to you, you determine if we go further, chit-chat and tirades will not pay. If you ask the right questions, I can answer, else...

Cheers
Tamaraton Trinus Tantrum

Trinus now? Let me in on your obsession with three, my dear.

Christianity Etc › Re: TECHNOLOGY!! - One Of The Greatest Proofs Of God! by DrLiveLogic(op): 11:11pm On Jul 26, 2020*

Tamaratonye5:
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

This is the dumbest howler a creatard can make. Priceless.

An accepted scientific theory is the pinnacle of scientific thought. You’ll be implying scientific laws are superior to scientific theories next. It really is sad that creatards are this ignorant of the most basic scientific methodology and terminology.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses but are reliable accounts of the real world.

You can just Google it ffs. PMLMAO etc etc

No shame in learning so if you've got something to teach me, do graciously. But first, verify it. Only for your sake, I googled it, so you wouldn't be so rash in your ignorance next time. Here.
[url=https://www.lexico.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&filter=en_dictionary&dictionary=en&s=t&query=theory] Theory 1[/url], Theory 2
Look at the various definitions above and take a wild guess what I mean when I say evolution is a just a theory, supposition, proposition, which is why it is continually modified with findings.
It seems certain you're not trained in the scientific method SM, though obviously learned, evidenced in verbosity and loquacity. Might make a good journalist too, wonder your field?
Not that you're uninformed about the SM but seem yet to apply it to produce standard scientific material else you would understand the justified arguments against the evo rhetoric.
To help you, a theory looks at findings, you wrongly term proof, proposing reasonable explanations, under established principles. However, this is usually subjective and open to modification and critiquing, as there could still be several unknowns, grey areas and more circumspect perspectives. A law, on the other hand, is not open to modification, nor subjected to perspective as it is constant logically deduced by experimentation. Just google all, not some, differences between a theory and a law and quit your huff and puff of more guff. Your 12" will do you no good on this dancefloor, especially not with your draping ball-gown.

When I said you've thrown out a mind of your own, understand I really meant no insult but that you let others do your thinking, swallowing unfiltered info. It's also true of most but on the path to freedom, you need to subject all information to independent scrutiny using logic. I'm certain you're up to the task, hence my suggestion, sweet Tantrum. If you only try this, you'd see why evolutionism doesn't get "fact" status by "consensus" but until the rhetoric is objectively proven to fit the findings without interpolation.

No, you came out of the gate as an asshole. If you did not like my response, tough. My response was proportional to the level of asshole you portrayed. First impression dude, first impressions

Does it make you feel better with cussing? Very well then. I'm no more guilty than the book I quoted. At least I only called a line of thought what it is and that remains what it is.

That I genuinely take as a compliment. I am faithless, I revel in that label, I am proud of it if a superstitious religious apologist calls me faithless...

The undergirding proof of reality is consciousness from which logic is developed. Learn again, logic projects from intrinsically established realities/axioms to deduced realities based on established laws. There is a self-established reality to develop logic from and not deduced by logic. This is why faith, like matter, cannot be logically determined. It is a self-subsistent reality. A little baby knows mama is real because it's aware of her not because of systematic deductions. We similarly know the universe is real.
Are there laws to be developed from the materiality of faith? Like in the universe, yes, but these must be patiently learnt and is why the man of faith has many unknowns in that school and even his knowledge is not impeccable. But faith is a self-subsistent substrate to be freely contacted by any who wishes.
So the substantiality of faith, like our universe, is in consciousness not in logic. The question must be 'how to contact'. It is not about believing bogus claims but about contacting a tangible substrate. If one weren't and is busy convincing himself of anything, he is still faithless.

Cheers
Tamaraton Trigon Tantrum

And why Trigon, if I may ask?

Christianity Etc › Re: TECHNOLOGY!! - One Of The Greatest Proofs Of God! by DrLiveLogic(op): 2:17pm On Jul 25, 2020*

Tamaratonye5:
DrLiveLogic, next time have the common courtesy to give me a fair warning in advance before subjecting me to mindless wall of rant sitting above in your OP! Anyone opening this thread is doing so at his/her own risk. I suspected it will be such anyway, so its a good thing I brought my hard hat and gas mask
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The stuff that was created in the past (knives, bow and arrow, reading and writing, etc) didn’t work?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn’t agree with you more; anyone who tells you something like that is proof; doesn’t know what they are talking about:

Seems you don’t know what you are talking about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DrLiveLogic, it appears not even you read your OP. You begin by requesting we work together, then proceed to inject insults and charged words such as the following:

And you expect me to engage in constructive dialogue?

-----------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Tantrum

It's all good dear. As long as we know evolutionism remains a theory with all so called objective evidence simply subjective. Take that with you anywhere.

All your highlighted grievances tho. Check well, none was directed on a specific person but on a line of thought only. LMAO.

Plus ma'am, you wearing a 12" and a ball gown? seem to be tripping over yourself. Saying you don't subscribe to faith, you've misconstrued, and then getting offended I called you faithless, by my definition, even as it wasn't directed at anyone specifically on that thread?
Well, it'll do you good to tell you you're faithless, cause that gives you hope that you've not exhausted all possibilities for the security of your soul but you won't find that in the realm you've confined yourself to.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is Faith Really? by DrLiveLogic(m): 2:13pm On Jul 25, 2020*

[quote author=Tamaratonye5][/quote]Valid questions on existence and beyond logic, to be answered, in the quest of faith:

1. Does the Singularity not point to an existence beyond the current coordinate system and material plane?
2. Does it not show the limitation of current logic to account for existence beyond?
3. Isn't the material plane considered real firstly because we are in some way conscious of it ever before logic?
4. Is logic then the absolute determinant of existence or derived from a precedent viz. consciousness?
5. Are there other modes of consciousness asides our physical senses?
6. Is this material plane all we're conscious of?
7. If ID is evidenced in human intelligence, the body's design and all lower intelligence littered across the universe, then as per the human-robot analogy, could there be a higher intelligence across the singularity?
8. If such higher intelligence is, and would relate with us, is it possible that in our design is ability to transcend this plane?
9. If so, could there be weaved into us, faculties beyond our physical body?
10. Are we conscious of any such faculties in us even if not logically determined?
Are we conscious of:
i. a moral centre/conscience, poking us from time to time, guiding us also?
ii. an emotional centre for fear, anger, hate, anguish, worry etc., causal of the chemicals our bodies release with these?
iii. a metaphysical sense for dreams and visions, ESP?
iv. an imaginative centre?
v. a centre of desire for satisfaction and pleasure, which is the seat of boredom?
vi. A cognitive centre, affecting choice, causal to the brain's directing the body towards imagined action.
If you really wanna go deep on faith, try seriously considering these questions.

If it ends here, we should at least end on a cordial note. You can certainly deem my disposition towards you like Attila's though I would poke you with truth only, uncomfortable as it might be for you. If you'd still like a meaningful discussion on faith, consider my questions, then we can proceed else I hope you find truth nonetheless.

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is Faith Really? by DrLiveLogic(m): 2:11pm On Jul 25, 2020*

LMAO. Weren't we having a pleasant convo? even invited you for a tango, and you....well, just threw yet another wild tantrum wit all cussing lingo. Great weapon against any unsure of their substance. When you have a potent argument, you needn't go ad hominem, is that section #1 you've broken? Cussing's like, "I'm reaching my limits, back off, before you notice". So can we exchange like mature minds?

Tamaratonye5: So far you’ve offered only ad hominems (in spades), subjective claims, and logical fallacies

Yet to present an argument, not here, made that clear. Here to discuss faith so you can't point to an ad hominem.

Tamaratonye5: I will talk with him again. He is waiting for me in my room

Can't be confined in a room but will be in the incorporeal part of your own self, if you contact the faith substrate.

Tamaratonye5: "code" in DNA is a chemical process. Not an intelligent acting agent, Imagine what it could create if it were intelligent. We would all have abilities like Savants. We would all look like super models

The old fallacy, "intelligence is perfection", which we contravene in our own IDs. You consider yourself intelligent, yet never made a perfect thing. Learn girl, intelligence is simply defined pattern towards purpose, god is perfection. Wanna look like a supermodel? Intelligence has brought gyms. Use both.
Genes maintain pattern in reproduction and sustenance not randomly altering self, each bearing its species, never crossing, and each species with its set of conjugate features. That's organisation, administration... one word, intelligence.

Tamaratonye5: Crystals, ocean waves, sand dunes, shells, (Have you heard of the golden ratio? ) all of art and all of nature… oops!Sorry! You were trying to be rhetorical. He he he … I thought you were actually asking a question. Silly me!

More huff-puff, I almost smh off. These, as most findings of evolutionists, points rather to ID. Does this still make an argument if same intelligence that coded the genes, coded the syntax of these? Or are these events not caused under same defined conditions, whatever the variables, everytime they occur? Like A+B+C always=D syntax. You only point to coordination associated with intelligence. Now include the hows of water cycle, nutrient cycle, gaseous cycles, all we need to sustain life, coded into and self-sustained in nature, order in galactic systems....ID!!
If you'd deny ID in nature, it's fine. Every intelligent person, even you, can easily guess why any would relish in denial.

Tamaratonye5: I still think that if I can trash Evolution, my God will be the default position.

Not really. Just think it's courtesy to remind you, you really aren't standing on any logical ground but in denial.

Tamaratonye5: it has been validated by the scientific method,

Evolutionist's dreamland. Already challenged you to substantiate evidences, so they're debunked again.

Tamaratonye5: species evolution is a demonstrable scientific fact based on overwhelming objective evidence

Recycled debunked evo myths. Subspeciation under highly manipulated laboratory conditions, better called adaptation can never prove trans-speciation, not to mention under uncontrolled conditions.

Tamaratonye5: including peer reviewed work and a global scientific consensus based on all the objective evidence, even the largest most powerful church on earth has long ago stopped denying the fact of species evolution

Dear logic criminal, Tantrum, hereby sentenced to.... for contravention of section #9 and #10 of her logic laws.
Plus, guess what? this is how many religious doctrines became too and well, so much for that.

Tamaratonye5: Especially since as I pointed out Francis Collins is a born again christian, and is on record as stating that he wishes it (species evolution) were not an objective fact, but the evidence from DNA shows it is.

ROFLMAO, good one, if you hoped the christian part would make a stronger case. So much for your 'scientific method'. Logic, Tantrum, is self-subsistent. All he's got here is the old ignoratio elenchi, the interpolation into subspeciation.

Tamaratonye5: [2] Why do you disingenuously keep trying to reverse the burden of proof? If you can demonstrate any objective evidence for any creation in nature then do so plainly, and desist from these fallacious argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies.

Tamaratonye5: However, and as I have pointed out, even were evolution not a scientific fact,

Tamaratonye5: ..in the theory of evolution

Fine. Taken you admit to having no objective evidence for the evo rhetoric.
Long as you don't bring it up till ready to subject it to thorough scrutiny, we're good. My point of inviting you my thread was to show all so called "objective evidence" of current evo rhetoric is subjective and simply hopeful leaps, leaving the atheist only an option of agnosticism of origins with admission to ID. If you already put evolution in its place, we move.
As I said, the burden to find truth lies on you solely. We're all fallible, so creator coded truth into your innate existence so another's defect wouldn't subvert your truth quest. So scrap that "if none's able to convince me, I'm justified with my belief", smelt miles away. It's only courtesy we engage each other and a fortune if you're convinced.
Proof of faith, as said before, lies not in logic. If you'd force all down that route, then you weren't willing to give faith it's place. Logic confirmed existence beyond its domain, across the Singularity, hence witnessing against who would limit existence to it. Again, I have pointed out, faculties of your existence not logically but empirically realised. There, is the track of faith's quest, but you keep ignoring.

Tamaratonye5: and faith is utterly useless in validating claims or beliefs, as there is literally nothing one could not believe using faith. I keep asking, if you believe something without any objective evidence, or based on faith alone in other words, then what is your criteria for disbelieving anything?

None should believe anything without objective evidence or tangibility, else creator needn't give us senses. Come this far, still learnt nothing bout faith but holding your misconception.
Faith's not believing blindly nor is creator requiring that anyone believe anything but existence. Paul didn't try to believe any bout Jesus but simply contacted faith which, for the umpteenth time, is a substrate, the point in Hebrews, you miss. Like matter, to be contacted. Not trying to prove any nor proven by any, only a germ, growing itself into matter superimposing it's quality. We don't prove rocks, water or any matter logically. We make contact to attest to their reality. The question on faith, if rightly grasped, should only be how to contact and the only case against creator is if he requires it without making it contactable.

My technique was gonna be, after debunking all "objective evidence" for evo theory on my thread and showing the hypocritical denial in standing on it, going on to show logic, and so science, is absolute only in its domain, the material universe, which is but a subset of the whole of existence, then begin awaken you to other domains of existence. But you seem to care less for real answers on faith than girlie chit-chat and mudslinging tirades. We would gain nothing that way. At the rate were going, I may just have to drop some and prolly bow out.

Valid questions on existence and beyond logic, to be answered, in the quest of faith:
1. Does the Singularity not point to an existence beyond the current coordinate system and material plane?
2. Does it not show the limitation of current logic to account for existence beyond?
3. Isn't the material plane considered real firstly because we are in some way conscious of it ever before logic?
....continued below...

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is Faith Really? by DrLiveLogic(m): 12:26pm On Jul 23, 2020*

Tamaratonye5: [/quote]You know, Tantrum, you got a lot of "huff, puff, and oh, it's just bluff and guff that makes up your stuff" in you.
I clearly didn't try to present logic and objective evidence to validate a creator in my post but directed you to an appropriate thread for that. Here's for faith. So it's funny you were looking for that in my post and not finding, try to help me define logic even asking to go learn. No, no, I have not embarrassed myself, but feel a little embarrassed for you rather. You should learn to read and comprehend or just read again and try your luck this time.

[quote author=Tamaratonye5]There is no intelligence in DNA, this is another tedious unevidenced assertion.

Proven!....by his statement. undecided

You just love breaking your laws of logic, don't you? It's evident you've thrown out a mind of your own and will accept anything that comes remotely close to a pillow for your cozy lies. I guess you also accept without filtering, all the mainstream media feeds you. To begin with, simple question for my thread. Does consistency of pattern in repeated processes reveal intelligence, like in mass production in a factory? If so, tell me, without quoting another human, if the genetic code is unintelligent.

Tamaratonye5: That would be nature with untold ubiquitous suffering from disease and predation? Question: If your "god" declared that slavery was moral, would you also accept that slavery is moral? In the interests of fair play, my position is that any form of slavery, including indentured servitude, is immoral.

I've mentioned r you on my thread. When you mention suffering, disease, predation, and distaste for slavery in one paragraph, you have no idea how much evidence you already provided for the creator and his perfect nature. I'll keep these in the record. Shall we tango? Of course, you can suggest the "romantic interlude". grin

Tamaratonye5: Sorry to burst yours though, but that is a theistic claim, not an atheistic one.

LMAO. You must think I'm bubbled up in religionists or scientits's prejudices. Unlike you, I'm among the freeest men alive from tentacles and shackles of a fellow human's thought. Not even if it was "theistic", odd as it is you use that word on a false belief. I'm loyal only to logic and faith.

Tamaratonye5: The entire scientific world disagrees with you, as does all the objective evidence. This also includes Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, and a world leader in genetics, and he is a born again christian. Now despite his religious beliefs being based on risible unevidenced guff, his scientific credential are beyond repute, so this rather destroys your dishonest guff here.

Well, lookiehere, what do we have? Wonder if Tantrum can count how many of her 10 sacred laws of logic she and fellow evolutionists break with their belief? 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Oh heck, even 1,2. undecided

And bandwagon fallacy is all I see in your post up there. Challenge my claim with facts and not theories first. Then try bringing forth the arguments and objective evidence for current evolution rhetoric, one by one, to my thread, to be trashed as usual. I'll take no credit for it, the accepted interpretation of evolution has long invalidated itself in the mind of critical thinkers for its obvious failure to satisfy the same old recycled questions it keeps avoiding with the excuse of a hopeful search for more convincing evidence and a merciful plea to not throw it out just yet. Researchers yet to come up with new ones, so well, let's go down the old track again.

Tamaratonye5: It can be ingrained through childhood indoctrination or imbued through innocent wonder,

That moment it was so sure she didn't understand any I said about faith. grin

Tamaratonye5: But, like many people experience, as I did, once the "scales fall fromyour eyes", and you can no longer hold on to the old truths and beliefs

Thread's titled "what's faith". It'll be a shame it ends with you still on this warped idea of it. Trust me, you and all those people never had an ounce of faith. Maybe good bible learning. Those are subject to change, even for the one with faith. But as matter's unchanged by learning, so faith. The crust, stars, trees, sky, haven't changed with all our learning, neither faith. Like these, it isn't learnt, but contacted. Y'all prolly went to church and learnt whatever men or books told you but faith, can't be gotten but by direct contact with creator himself. Tell me, did you ever have anything you can relate to direct contact with creator? Please elaborate. If not, you've never known faith. Sorry.

Tamaratonye5: The fact remains there are inconsistencies all through the books of the Bible

Not a single one, bet ya. All due to your misunderstanding

Tamaratonye5: But as I value truth, I still feel it my duty to challenge beliefs of all sorts, not out of any animosity but out of hope for better understanding for both parties.

Good luck with that. Till you can challenge the sun or moon, can't challenge faith. You'll only end up challenging fallacious religious doctrines, but not faith. Faith's either touch it or it isn't. Creator's the only source of it.

Tamaratonye5: I do not consider myself ignorant of understanding divine matters, despite my atheism, that's just more of your prejudice.

Aww, ain't that cute, she offered her consideration for proof. undecided

Once again, I assure you 100%, you're 100% ignorant, nothing personal and as you bring your bogus ideas, I'll show you. Faith's where it all begins, and you can't get that from the holiest book on earth.

Tamaratonye5: I have evidences of various kinds and from diverse sources that point to the suggestion that Paul subverted the Christian faith

I give no hoot bout human sources. Men are fallible. Now substantiate your claim objectively or just plain drop it.

Tamaratonye5: and some of his writings reveal his resentments for Peter and the Jerusalem apostles that do not reflect brotherly love, but rather jealousy and bombast.

Tantrum at her finest. Substantiate please or next!

Tamaratonye5: My real purpose is to ask how certain professing Christians are that they are following the true teachings of Christ.

Okay then, we could leave all others for later and start here. Well, not the professors, but every genuine believer has the substrate of faith in him. If he allows this grow like a germ in him, he need care not but he is 100% following all teachings of christ whose words, are spirit and life not for mere grasping but contacting, John 6:65, the substrate growing inside a man. Many believers however are not wise in their germ of spirit as the men are wise in their germ of reason, Luke 16:8

Tamaratonye5: Can they be absolutely certain Paul did not dishonestly subvert Jesus’s insistence to observe the Mosaic laws.

Another misunderstanding from trying to reconcile two agents of faith from the germ of veiled reason. Reason looks at Moses with a veil, Paul, a man of faith, wise in his germ, merely takes off the veil, to look Moses in the face, 2 Cor 3:15-16. Sadly, even many genuine believers fall into such error.

Tamaratonye5: and this Christians resent me.

Any Christian that resents you for your ignorance is obviously not growing his germ. You ought to be pitied only and hoped the best for, before you're even schooled on such
Finally, summary of all is come over my thread where we do the dirty work on the illogicality of atheistic beliefs including the portions of my post you avoided and for here, if you will learn of faith, start with my experiment on giving yourself unwavering hope of peace with creator. Evolutionists liking your posts when you're yet to logically justify any evolutionist beliefs undecided

. Agnostics on the subject deserve more respect than most evolutionists.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: TECHNOLOGY!! - One Of The Greatest Proofs Of God! by DrLiveLogic(op): 12:23pm On Jul 23, 2020

Tamaratonye5 Tantrum, I invite you to this dance.

Christianity Etc › Re: Was TRINITY Taught By Jesus Or The Early Apostles??? by DrLiveLogic(m): 3:46pm On Jul 22, 2020

DappaD:
Ah hah! Why are you ignoring the question?

Stop clowning around, got no time for games. You outrightly avoided my questions to ask me the same question I just answered completely, explaining how men can sit on the same throne with the Father and Son.
Answer these?
a. Is Solomon's throne not a throne made of earthly materials but dedicated to YAHWEH? Or you don't know that the way the priests, Moses represented Christ was the same way that David and His reign represented Christ? Smh. I wonder what you guys do over there.
b. Did Solomon sit on God's throne in heaven where Christ is seated together with the Father?
c. Does the river of eternal life proceed from Solomon's throne
d. Does Solomon live in the bosom of the Father in heaven?
e. Can Solomon or any created being live in the heart of other created beings?
f. Can Solomon live in the hearts of God and men all over the world at the same time, thereby making them one and to reign together on the heavenly throne.

If you're not able to answer these questions, spare me. And don't forget my three questions waiting for you on the other thread, they're just to help you. Don't run from them. LMAO.

cornelboy:
The Father is the Almighty. Because of Human Trinity doctrines, you have fallen from the TRUTH, your going down a slippery slope.

"My Father and I are one", did he mean that as one God or perfectly united in will and purpose

Hahahaha! Can you relate the earthly father and son relationship the same as the heavenly. Does God have a heavenly wife that can affect his offspring genes? Did God create his own gene or was it always inside Him? Jesus is the very seed of God that has always existed inside His Being. He can manifest as anything he chooses but chose to take on human flesh rather than angels, yet He will always be the seed of God inside the flesh He took. This same seed, the Word, is what God wants to put in men's hearts so that they can become like God, in His image.
Explain this scripture (John 3:13). How can a created being be in heaven and earth at the same time?

Christianity Etc › Re: Was TRINITY Taught By Jesus Or The Early Apostles??? by DrLiveLogic(m): 2:46pm On Jul 22, 2020

DappaD:
Lol. This caught my attention.
So now, can you please explain 1Chronicles 29:23 & Revelation 3:21?

Your problem is that you think god is a created being like yourself or angels so you keep trying to put Him in your finite boundaries. LMAO.
God is a spirit omnipotent and He can be in a million places at once. The way Christ is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18, John 16:28) and from there furnishes a throne of omnipotence for the Father, He seeks to live in every heart of the men at the same time, furnishing them with the same reigning power/ throne of His Father being the source inside god's bosom from which the reigning power of the Godhead flows. Without Him, God cannot be omnipotent and cannot be God.

Eph 3:17 ...that Christ may be housed permanently in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love...
Joh 14:23 Jesus responded and said to him, "If any loves me, he will keep my words and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode with him"
Joh 17:21 ...that they all may be one as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me

Only He can bind all creation together the same way He binds the three aspects in the godhead Being together. If men let Him dwell in their hearts as he dwells in the Father's bosom, then the way he and his Father are one, they too will experience this oneness and the Father and Himself will dwell in them. Can a created being be in God's bosom and men's hearts at the same time? Can a created being dwell inside you?

cornelboy:
What do you know about the Gospel
Does the Bible teaches Trinity or one GOD who is the Father
1 Corinthians 8:6, John 17:3.
If Jesus say the Father is the one True GOD, who are you to say that they are "Triune".
With your human-inspired doctrine, you claim that Jesus is equal with God, whereas the Bible teaches otherwise.
Who do you follow, GOD's word, the Bible or human doctrine

When you understand your own being, you will understand why God is three aspects but one Being but each aspect can manifest to creation individually. All these scriptures you are quoting speak of the Word playing the role of son of God. He is and has always been the Word before the role of son of God he plays. The role of Son has a beginning and end but the Word has no beginning and no end. The Holy Spirit also plays the role of His witness now but He is and always was before creation one Being. Go back and read #1 to understand what he was before creation. Just wait for my thread.

Christianity Etc › Re: Was TRINITY Taught By Jesus Or The Early Apostles??? by DrLiveLogic(m): 12:28pm On Jul 22, 2020

cornelboy:
the writer of this post and the post itself is a confusion.
Jesus and Yahweh are two separate and distinct being.
How do you explain 1 Corinthians 15:24-28

It's one thing to ask for explanation. It's another to point out confusion or misrepresentation. Go through #1 to #5 and see if there is any misrepresentation of facts from the bible. Then when you can agree that all that is in the Bible, and that Jesus has no separate throne from the Father but is seated on one throne with Him, then I'll come and explain the gospel to you and you will see how simple it is to fit your 1Cor 15, into the full story. Your JW brothers here should have told you the little part I've taught them about the difference between the Word as Divinity before creation and the Son of God role he came to assume to help man to fulfill destiny. Ask them. I'll come back to edit this post and give you the full answer. Also watch out for my thread on the Godhead, coming soon. All your confusion will be dissolved. LMAO.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is Faith Really? by DrLiveLogic(m): 12:20pm On Jul 22, 2020*

Tamaratonye5: It's evidence of the non-existence of a creator god. Plus, Mut/tleyLaff, let us not forget that other animals have superior eyes. The mantis shrimp eyes have many superior characteristics. Some raptor birds function like telescopes. Cats can see where to us humans it is pitch black. Chameleons can rotate their eyes.

Sorry to burst your bubble but you are no image of god, you would have to begin from faith and work your way into such image. Despite the fall and consequent defects, all creatures show the creator expresses a billion ideas but remains one person in his essence/substratum, each design uniquely intelligent and suited to a specific purpose. There's more proof of the intelligent designer in your little rant up there than in many volumes of scientific papers. Way to go!
Plus yeah, evolution died as another illogical idea in the mind, with many other and when the scientific community discovered the universality of the genetic code across multifarious existence, that just somehow doesn't evolve.
Have you also studied the complexity of the genetic code and the degree of intelligence embodied by it. Pray tell, if there's still rationality in you, how does that not make you throw out the idea of anticreationism?

IamMichael: My understanding of faith is that it applies to something that actually works, not the unknown.

You are much closer to understanding faith than Tamaraton Tantrum. If you don't lose this, you might end up finding the precious treasure called faith. Faith ain't no blind belief, it's unseen with natural eyes like an atom but realised in its external body of the hope of peace with God. The man whose got it, sees it and perceives it hence cannot deny it's existence as well as you perceive the screen in your head, called mind yet can't see it or even it's imaginations. Faith is alive and active in itself hence unlike your imaginations which need your actions, faith influences reality by itself including your actions.
Like I told Tantrum, none would believe the impossibility of convincing oneself of the hope of peace with god except they tried. Faith is the only substratum of this very hope, given freely by god, at his own expense, to men who will humbly seek.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: What Is Faith Really? by DrLiveLogic(m): 12:19pm On Jul 22, 2020*

Tamaratonye5: I am an atheist because theists and religious apologist can't demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. Also the arguments presented are often irrational and flawed.

No thanks, Tamaraton Tantrum, we'll pass your blame back, fully intact. Try taking responsibility for your decisions. None but you will be held responsible. You've got just as much brain and stuff as others, so do yourself a favor and stop waiting for another to do you.
It's one thing to have no faith, it's another to be an atheist. Sorcerers and demons believe in creator but got no faith. In the physical plane though, atheists make completely irrational, tending even to dumb claims, whelmed in denial despite logic screaming out loud on the rooftops, pointing to an intelligent designer, beginning from your body and soul, proceeding to the intergalactic systems and all apart from scientific evidences like the space-time models and all natural laws e.g. energy conservation.
Also, logic presents the conduct required of us by simply observing laws of nature and the consequences of going against them. If you wanna go down the logic route to prove creator's existence of and determine his ways, you can engage me on my thread where I prove the illogicality of atheism (https://www.nairaland.com/5985904/technology-one-greate). However, though logic points to a creator and even his ways, faith is the only substance which pacifies (without your ignoring) creator's personal gauge/meter, your pricking conscience, which seeing not, you cannot deny it's existence therefore faith is what connects you personally to him for relationship. Faith is also the only source point from which you can satisfy creator's laws of conduct to your fellows and himself, mirrored in the laws of nature E.g. "Do to others as you would have done to you" reflected in "action and reaction are equal and opposite". So even after logic establishes creator's existence, you must seek faith which comes from himself alone to have hope of eternal security and peace with him.

Tamaratonye5: Actually - faith is already defined by the bible in Hebrews 11:1"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Why wouldn’t I have confidence in the Law of Gravity?

Heb 11:1-2 ...and faith is the substratum of what is expected, the object of proof, not seen because in it the elders became witnesses.
The essence of faith here is many long strides from where you roll. As you may know, the atom is the indivisible unit of matter which retains all peculiar qualities of it and yet this atom is not seen naturally, only substances as embodiment of atoms are seen. What nature is tryna teach you about creator is right under your nose. As your natural senses cannot perceive atoms, learn that the things that hold the world together and are responsible for it are beyond your senses (Hebrews 11:3). Like the atom, faith's unseen, but as seeing matter leads to the conclusion that there's an atom, so the superhuman feat of unwavering expectation of peace with God leads to the conclusion that faith is in a man. The atom is to matter what faith is to this the hope of peace with god.
Until you actually try convincing yourself of such hope, you'll be yet to see that you can tell your mind anything you wish, you can even numb your conscience by warped reasoning but you cannot create this unwavering hope without the building block of faith which you must go humbly to receive from creator himself. Of course, any can claim this unwavering hope but such claims can be easily validated when face to face with death.

Tamaratonye5: All of that is for the choir. I realise now my audience of 40 years ago with no sense of guilt or fear or need of redemptions, would have needed a Damascene event, in reality, of their own, to establish a faith and belief in a god. Just like Paul. Why is it they dont get one and are doomed to eternal punishment? Right, logical. Its ironic that Christians now quote him in the defence of the lofty merits of blind faith and supposedly logical belief.

Nothing ironic to reference Paul for faith. Granted, a unique experience came along Paul's reception of faith, other unique experience will come alongside for everyone else but the litmus test for the presence of faith is always the reality of unwavering hope and faith's animated and organic transformations on men's personalities. In case you didn't know, there's some special in store for those who receive faith without these epiphanies (John 20:26-29)
Btw, what do you mean by Jesus rather than YHWH, you think they're different? and elsewhere you call the bible a book of contradictions. If you're ignorant of divine matters, why not just let them be? There's no possibility nor logicality of creator or his ways contradicting if he is god indeed.

Tamaratonye5: Peter got passed over, along with the original teachings of Jesus, because he was a Jew

In your theology, of course. This is absurd. Where do you even get these ideas? But then again, what to expect of those who try to build spiritual stuff without the substratum, faith.

Tamaratonye5: Paul sought every opportunity to criticise him because he was jealous of his position as the publicly acknowledged and real life Christ-appointed First Apostle.

You know if one's got much animosity and self-conceit in them, they'd see others actions through that (Titus 1:15). For those who know, Paul and Peter loved each other more than words can describe and deeper than what best friends share but well, what would you know about their love without the faith binding them?

Tamaratonye5: Paul was an argumentative self-centred psychopath who had nothing more than an unwitnessed conversion on a remote section of the Damascus road as his only credentials to apostleship. It was Barnabas’s misplace faith in him that got himsome grudging acceptance with the real apostles. And even then the bonehead had a falling out with Barnabas not long after. He was a disputatious fanatic.

No wonder you're scared to believe there's a creator. If there were, how would his judgement of you not be as damning as yours is of others, without any grounds either. Paul as much as you seem to hate him said something educative (Titus 1:15)

Tamaratonye5: The unwelcomed psychopath subverted the original Christian doctrine of Jesus and his views on faith are dishonest ramblings of a guy who had a physical conversion, that is, he was convinced he actually met his god, who struck him blind. How does faith play a part in that?

Just asking, do you have any foe by the name Paul or Saul? Take it out on them then. The bible Paul subverted nothing, else show it. You don't have the building block, faith, but think you can poke your nose into matters require faith to grasp. Sorcerers have more spiritual experiences than Paul but none comes to the unwavering hope of peace with creator in their conscience. If Paul had this Damascus experience and didn't get faith itself, he would still be damned and worse off than one who got faith otherwise.

Tamaratonye5: No designer would be satisfied with the many defects and compromises in the human eye. It’s exactly what you’d expect to emerge from chance mutations combined with natural selection.

And yet we design robots and continually upgrade their models for limitations. That must mean robots are not intelligently designed but a product of chance. Atheistic silliness at it again! In design, there's a difference between limitations and absence of intelligence. Plus did you ever learn of the "fall" when you were "reading" the bible? Go figure!
Yeah also, does natural selection follow an intelligent principle in your evolutionary theory or is it just haphazard chanced mutations?
One way or another, your answer will contradict your belief in "accidental existence"

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Was TRINITY Taught By Jesus Or The Early Apostles??? by DrLiveLogic(m): 8:04pm On Jul 21, 2020*

#5 Creator of Heavens and Earth vs created angels (is Jesus an angel?)

Chapters 1&2 of Hebrews were written particularly to point out that the Word is not and never was an angel but the creator who took flesh of mankind and became the only begotten son. It is a shame that after Paul's painstaking effort, some mischievous fellows still dubiously claim that the Word is angel Michael. I have already begun treating this but will continue where I left off. Paul quites the OT prophecy below

Psa 102:22-27 ...when the people are gathered and united, and the kingdoms, to serve YAHWEH who subdued His power in His way and cut short His days. They will say, "O God, who were taken up in the middle of your days, yet your years are from generation to generation for in the beginning, you laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the product of your hands. They'll perish, but you'll remain. Yes! They'll all wear out like a cloth and as a vesture you'll change them, and they'll be changed while you are the same, and your years will have no end"

Here, the psalmist describes how the nations gathered to worship God, YAHWEH saying that though his earthly days were cut short, in reality, he lives on because he cannot possibly die who is creator of the heavens and the earth and the psalmist also shows that rather than creation putting an end to Him through the cross, he is the one that will rather put an end to his creation and change it like we change clothes i.e. you can expect Him at anytime he chooses to put an end to all he has created including angels and create afresh like how we take off old clothes and put on new clothes.

Paul cites this prophecy by the psalmist, to prove the son is the uncreated creator while the angels were only created, as he shows that to the son, it was said that he is the creator but of the angels it was said that they are created beings
Heb 1:7-12 ...and in fact concerning the angels was said, "who makes his angels spirits and his attendants a flame of fire" but to the Son was said...also, you, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of earth and the heavens are a product of your hands: They'll perish but you'll remain and they'll all wear out like a cloth and as a vesture you'll fold them up, and they'll be changed but you are the same, and your years will not fail"

So Paul proves that the Word who became flesh and then the son of God, who was also crucified is obviously the YAHWEH worshipped by the nation's gathered in the psalm and fulfilling the prophecy
According to Paul and the prophets, the Word is one Being with YAHWEH

Christianity Etc › Re: Was TRINITY Taught By Jesus Or The Early Apostles??? by DrLiveLogic(m): 3:16am On Jul 19, 2020*

#4 WORSHIP OF GOD
To Hebrews, worship and service of any heavenly being are one and the same thing. Also, some christian sects today claim that there are many gods apart from YAHWEH. Even if we claim God's angels or men are also called gods, at least we can agree that YAHWEH commanded that He is the only god among all the "gods" to be worshipped and served.

Exo 20:2-5 KJV I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

The Lord Jesus himself said to Satan:
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve

Clearly worship/service of god belongs only to YAHWEH.

Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him

But above, we see that YAHWEH who commanded that He alone be worshipped and no created god also commanded that all the angels worship Jesus Christ because the Father and Word are one Being. Obviously, God is not contradicting Himself.
Now watch again!

Isa 45:21-23 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I YAHWEH? and there is no God else beside Me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

YAHWEH who also calls himself Saviour, the same title with Jesus, declared that unto him alone all must bow the knee and confess to for no there is other god besides Him. The Romans adopted this very concept and made people worship their emperor's by bowing the knee and confessing to the Emperor/King. This worship which includes the knee bowing and tongue confessing is only for YAHWEH, the emperor of the Universe.
But to whom will all knees bow and all tongues confess?

Phi 2:10-11 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

It can be no clearer that YAHWEH and the the Word are one Being as god as by comparing the two above texts. And to bow and confess to Jesus as Lord/Supreme is to glorify/worship the Father at the same time because they are One Being as god.
We see also in the following text that the Father and Word bearing the title "Who is , was and is to come" (shown in #1), who as one Being will judge both the living and the dead, (shown in #2), that are on one sovereign throne (shown in #3). It is this Father and Word who are worshipped by the elders in heaven as One Being and both called the Almighty.

Rev 11:16-18 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou should give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and should destroy them which destroy the earth.

We also know Israel worshipped and served YAHWEH. A good question is who did the apostles worship and serve? Should they serve an angel or any created being. If so, they are idol worshippers.

Jas 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
James boldly declares that he is a servant of God and Jesus Christ because they are One Being and he is not an idol worshipper therefore.

See also who Paul served
Phi 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
Paul served Jesus Christ (Also Romans 1:1, Tit 1:1)

Once again it is clear that YAHWEH who alone is to be worshipped and served is One Being with the Word who is also worshipped and served at the same time.

Q.E.D. Let's move to another prerogative of God.

N.B: The gospel is simple. God became a man. And acted as both God and man at the same time. To teach men how to worship God right and to make it possible for and show men how to become sons of God. So quoting scriptures that reveal God's humanity which happened only about 2000 years ago takes nothing away from the Word's original existence as one Being with the Father.

Christianity Etc › Re: Was TRINITY Taught By Jesus Or The Early Apostles??? by DrLiveLogic(m): 3:13am On Jul 19, 2020*

#3 THE THRONE OF GOD
It is evident that God owns the sovereign throne in the whole universe and every other is subservient to His. We also know that Jesus is enthroned at the right hand of the Father. This statement has made the carnal mind think that the Father sits on one throne and the Son sits located beside Him at the right.
But does the bible teach that Jesus is literally seated at the right hand of the Father or does the bible teach it is figurative as both Father and Son as One Being have one throne?
Let's find out:

In the apocalypse, John is given the clearest revelation of the heavenly administration in all the scripture. In Revelation 4, he describes the throne of God surrounded by elders' thrones. Notice he doesn't describe any throne located at the literal right of God's throne because there is no such throne.

So just where in heaven is the throne of the Son, the Lamb of God?
Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

The answer is clear here that it is only one throne, not two different thrones, belonging to God and also to the Lamb. Both are one Being and have just one throne in heaven and his servants serve him.
Now watch again!

Rev 20:11-13 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Furthermore, notice that it is this same Being, God who sits on the throne that will judge both the living and the dead. Some say this is the Father because the heaven and earth fled from his face. True, but it is Father and Son in one Being more precisely.
Remember we have shown in #2 that it is both YAHWEH of OT and Jesus Christ in one Being who will judge the dead and living.(2Ti 4:1, Ecc 3:17)
Again watch!

Rev 11:16-18 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou should give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and should destroy them which destroy the earth.

Finally, we see even more clearly here that its the same god who sits on the single sovereign throne who all the elders worship. Surely this is the Father, YAHWEH whose throne was described in the midst of the elders in Revelation 4.
But its also he who will judge the dead(unrighteous) and the living,(the prophets whom he will reward with his saints). Of course we know who it is that judges the dead and living by now. Surely it is the Lord Jesus(2Ti 4:1). Again, we see here Father and Word, as one Being, bearing the title "Who is and was and is to come"(as shown in the #1) in one Being sits on the single sovereign throne and will reign.

Clearly, the right hand of the Father is not literal since there is no throne at his geographical right in John's heavenly vista or any portion of the bible but it is figurative of his Omnipotence. I can treat this separately from the bible after we have all agreed that YAHWEH is Jesus.

Q.E.D. Let's move to another prerogative of God

N.B: The gospel is simple. God became a man. And acted as both God and man at the same time. To teach men how to worship God right and to make it possible for and show men how to become sons of God. So quoting scriptures that reveal God's humanity which happened only about 2000 years ago takes nothing away from the Word's original existence as one Being with the Father.

Christianity Etc › Re: Was TRINITY Taught By Jesus Or The Early Apostles??? by DrLiveLogic(m): 3:07am On Jul 19, 2020*

#2 JUDGMENT OF GOD

We know that YAHWEH, the God of OT revealed Himself to Israel as the one who will judge both living and dead.
Now notice in the verse below, it is God who gave the commandments to Moses, YAHWEH, who is to be feared, who will also judge every work.
Ecc 12:13-14 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil

Also observe another verse in the same letter that shows the same YAHWEH is the one who will judge righteous and sinners alike.
Ecc 3:17 I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.

But who are we told will judge all men?
2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick(righteous) and the dead(wicked) at his appearing and his kingdom;

Clearly answered. Paul says Jesus will judge the living and the dead. Comparing with OT texts, clearly Jesus and YAHWEH as one Being will judge all men. Now, reading again, its clear to see that Paul called God(YAHWEH) and Jesus as the same Being.

Q.E.D. Let's move to another prerogative of God.

N.B: The gospel is simple. God became a man. And acted as both God and man at the same time. To teach men how to worship God right and to make it possible for and show men how to become sons of God. So quoting scriptures that reveal God's humanity which happened only about 2000 years ago takes nothing away from the Word's original existence as one Being with the Father.

Christianity Etc › Re: Was TRINITY Taught By Jesus Or The Early Apostles??? by DrLiveLogic(m): 2:23am On Jul 19, 2020*

cornelboy:
If you carefully study the Bible, you would see and understand that the existence of only one true GOD, the Almighty was taught.
Jesus confirmed this in John 17:3, also Paul supported the authentic believe of the one true God, YaHweh who is the Father of all is a single person not "three in one God" or " God in three persons" as Trinitarians says. 1 corinthians 8:6.

Is YAHWEH, God of Israel one Being with Jesus Christ in NT who came to die for sin?

#1 NUMBER OF GOD
It is obvious that in order, God is the only Being who can be "First and Last/Beginning and Ending/Alpha and Omega" at the same time because he existed before every created thing and is the only One who will remain when he decides to end all existence.
The Simultaneous "First and Last" is a number only the Uncreated can have.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith YAHWEH, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

We see here that YAHWEH, the God of Israel is "First and Last" and is the only true God. Follow me now.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty

Rev 11:17-18 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, Who is and was and is to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned

We see that He calls himself by this number, "First and Last" and also the "Who is, was and is to come". He further calls himself, the Almighty/Omnipotent (El-Shaddai), an OT title of YAHWEH. Even the angels worship him and call him same on his throne. Angels are mighty, even Michael is very mighty but only YAHWEH is Almighty/Omnipotent.
From the OT text and also the two in the Apocalypse, It is clear that YAHWEH Almighty's number is "First and Last"

Now, observe:
In the beginning of the apocalypse, John meets with Jesus Christ, who introduces himself as
Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...
Rev 1:17-18 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

We see that this is Jesus Christ who was dead and resurrected. By his number here, "First and Last/Alpha and Omega/Beginning and Ending", we see that YAHWEH Almighty of OT and Jesus Christ of NT are one Being.

Little wonder that even when the Word became flesh, he testified he was on earth as Son and in heaven in the Father at once, a bilocation impossible with any being but God himself.
Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Q.E.D. Let's move to another prerogative of God.

N.B: The gospel is simple. God became a man. And acted as both God and man at the same time. To teach men how to worship God right and to make it possible for and show men how to become sons of God. So quoting scriptures that reveal God's humanity which happened only about 2000 years ago takes nothing away from the Word's original existence as one Being with the Father.

Christianity Etc › Re: TECHNOLOGY!! - One Of The Greatest Proofs Of God! by DrLiveLogic(op): 2:08am On Jul 19, 2020*

gensteejay:
I'm following your discussion with Otem. Please, use short paragraphs in your posts so they're easy to read.

Indeed, I get your point. Thanks for pointing out. The last post especially was done in a hurry ina bid to go out for some other business. I've quickly tried to modify though. Still expecting your own questions like I indicated before so we can appreciate all angles.

Christianity Etc › Re: TECHNOLOGY!! - One Of The Greatest Proofs Of God! by DrLiveLogic(op): 6:27pm On Jul 18, 2020*

OtemAtum:
Even in our bodies, we have anitbodies fighting other stuffs in our bodies. We even have worms in our bodies that are parasitic as well as symbiotic in our body. Taking sugar gives us energy, yet it can cause diabetes. Fats in our body is useful and can also lead to obesity. Protein has both good and bad effects in our body. That's exactly what is happening within existence. You say that I'm trying to influence your thoughts, but you don't understand that it is part of the source code. Whether you become eventually influenced or not is also part of the source code. Is your hand a slave to your brain? That we have an overall consciousness doesn't mean that we are slaves to it. We are this consciousness, but we are little little fragments of it. You said that I'm trying to bring another god, but this is untrue. Existence(God) has always been and nothing can surpass existence. Jehovah, Allah, Moloch, Vishnu, Atum, Shiva, Olorun etc have certain times when they began to be made known, but we all met Existence(God) here when we became conscious to the earth reality. So why are you trying to tell me that I'm just bringing another god when Existence has always been.

No. This doesn't follow the logic. Our bodies in the regard you speak are not a closed system. Germs and negative matter continually gets introduced from the external through food, air etc. When these get in, the antibodies eliminate them to return the body to its original state of rest. The point is there is a state of rest where the body isn't annihilating itself before such introduction.
Still goes with the logic that the animosity in the universe cannot be sustained infinitely. As matter gets eliminated, sustainable matter results, which process continues until the sustainable matter which cannot destroy itself. In the end there must be a state of rest.
Also the animosity could not have been from the beginning as there could be no infinite regress, so there was evidently a state of rest in the beginning. It is only this state of rest/constant which was in the beginning, the source of all things and which will be in the end, the remainder after all transients pass that we can define as god.
You make my point and contradict yourself when you say existence is god because we met existence there. This would be said all the way back to the first consciousness that "met" the initial existence. Only this initial never meeting any existence but itself then is god.
All other came from it, becoming conscious only at some point, the earliest occurrence being called the beginning of finite time. This is the only logical position. What we must investigate then is what this god/original existence is rather than the transients that met this existence.
Again on the animosity. It is impossible for a consciousness which existed in a state of rest to initiate an action towards its own destruction even according to laws of mechanics. Meaning the original consciousness could not have initiated the animosity. If then there is animosity at any point in existence, it shows that there was a point of creation of a consciousness free to take a different mould from the original. So the current state of animosity in the universe is proof of a point of creation of consciousness free to oppose original. Both freedom of will, opposed to your enslaved will/source code message, and an initial and final state of rest are easily deductible from the current state of existence.
@ the bolded, you would say it's in "my source code", wouldn't you? Forgetting your own mantra?

Christianity Etc › Re: TECHNOLOGY!! - One Of The Greatest Proofs Of God! by DrLiveLogic(op): 8:14pm On Jul 17, 2020

OtemAtum:
What part of your body is responsible for the coordinations of all the activities of your body? Do you single out that part when talking about yourself? Also, because I tried explaining God Almighty as a human being doesn't mean that it is a human being, so don't limit your thought to humanlike structures where the brain carries intelligence alone. But in the case of God Almighty, every conscious fragment of it also have intelligence. But the summation of this intelligence is what we call God Almighty. We call it summation of consciousnesses.

You say that the model of the universe has an endpoint, but you don't actually know that God Almighty surpasses the universes. Rather, God Almighty is the TOTALITY of Existence. The universe that is observed by the scientists yet is just one out of uncountable universes within God Almighty(Totality of Existence).

There is actually a model which reveals to us something like this.

What I find is that you propose another god without logical justification neither justifying your disbelief in the other gods.
a.) Your totality of existence god though is a constantly changing and alternating reality with sections of him, like our universe, here today and gone tomorrow asides the fact that parts of him are antagonistic to others unlike the human body which is coordinated to act uniformly in ultimate purpose. Parts of him are responsible for elimination of other parts, and such animosity is logically only sustainable towards an eventual constant state as the laws of thermodynamics suggests. So your god is bound to eventually evolve into a constant state of sustainable aspects of him. It is this that he reaches unto. This is therefore his purpose of existence. Yet the question must arise that how did a god who will end as a constant ever begin except as a constant? It is impossible that there was an unsustainable existence of animosity from the beginning by the impossibility of infinite regress. This should have been responsible for the parent code that led to the current state of existence, this initial should have been god.

b.) Again, you say every part of him is an intelligence yet you deny us any active intelligence, but claim we are only slaves to source codes. We however, strive to get ourselves informed to influence our decisions. You yourself are trying to influence my decision on god believing you can turn me to your way. You have even cursed all other gods and tried to divert us from their worship. This would have been unnecessary if you really believed I can only do according to my inner source codes. Why pick a quarrel with these gods if they are only running according to source codes and why educate men against them if these men are following their divine source codes. You live the contradiction of your belief and are proof of the madness of your god.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (of 8 pages)