₦airaland Forum

great people! I'v been up all night working my brains out...and ofcourse having fun debating with intellectuals on Nairaland...but I'd love to sleep now...sombrerogalaxy, it is pleasure meeting you, we don't get to see astro-physicists or cosmologists everyday!

Sombrerogalaxy: You see that is the beauty of science.....the truth always prevail. I give you an example - elliptical galaxies for example were believed to be red and dead i.e. non star forming and this was the paradigm for a long time, but we know today that this is not true. A lot of them are growing in size and mass from a redshift of ~2 till present day. So were the early astronomers wrong? Yes, they are, but they contributed to science.

hmmm! truth always prevail...yet truth is fluid in the hands of science...truth in the days of the early astronomers are no longer true now and truth now may cease to be true in 50 years time...well I guess Karl Popper was right all along...science is a series of refutations and corroborations...

[quote author=sombrerogalaxy][/quote]Please i know so little, yet i would so love to be a polymath...If you have or are on a thread where you discuss cool science stuff I wouldn't mind joining in and learning from the masters...I am a Christian that upholds the tenets of logic and empirics!

[quote author=sombrerogalaxy][/quote]Please i know so little, yet i would so love to be a polymath...If you have or are on a thread where you discuss cool science stuff I wouldn't mind joining in and learning from the masters...I am a Christian that upholds the tenets of logic and empirics!

Sombrerogalaxy: What exactly are you saying? I hope you are not saying that the earth is ~6000 yrs old! If that is what you are saying, then your position is quite unfortunate. I study galaxies for a living, if you know what that means and I find it disturbing, personally, that for whatever reason you have chosen to agree with a book written when myth was science! The body of evidence clearly and undeniably shows that the earth is ~4.5 billion yrs old. Saying that the earth is ~ 6000 years old, when terrestial rocks that are ~4 billion years old have been discovered is akin to saying that the part can be greater than the sum. To further confound you and your unscientific postulations, I study globular clusters ( group of stars) and these are among the oldest object in the known universe. They are around ~10 billion yrs old! Unless, your god is a late comer, there is absolutely no way, and I say this with all seriousness, that the earth would be that ridiculous age quoted in your bible. On this ground alone, any man who values reason will quickly discard the bible and whatever fictitous deity it promotes. The world wasnt made in 6 days! Galaxies are still being formed or is god out of his vacation, seeing he already completed his work?

Sir, I must confess I admire and to an extent envy the knowledge that you have but from what i have observed i see that most theories in the areas of astro-physics are under heated debate with new explanations to already explained cosmic phenomena being posited. I believe I won't be too far from the truth if i state that the field of astro-physics is just as fluid as economics...so many theories by very prominent scientists with very compelling evidence but very low consensus...I love the area of astro-physics and cosmology and the mysteries they unearth and often times i can help but imagine the dilemma a student of astro-physics or cosmology would be going through having to learn theories and counter theories both with compelling evidence...

Dapo777: Hahahahahahahahahaha, you make me laugh!

Have u travelled in an aeroplane before? The movement of the aeroplane is faster than the rotation of the earth about it's own axis,Why don't passengers get dizzy? Why don't passengers feel the movement, you would say the plane is not moving abi?
You have been talking like a professor in science Since But you just made a wrong conclusion now.

When the air hostess places a cup of coffee on ur chair as the plane moves,Why didn't the cup fly to the back due to the movement of the plane?

You know So much sciences, how come u don't know that it's only acceleration that can be felt not a constant speed because anything felt is a force and force is mass x acceleration not velocity.
Go and make ur research again and explain Why we don't feel the earth move.

Although I Am convinced about how quick coal is formed what about other substances?

...but seriously sir, I have not boarded a plane before! I''m from a very RICH BACKGROUND but nevertheless, even in a plane wouldn't the passengers have any sense of motion even if the acceleration of the plane were constant? Wouldn't they sense that there are in motion? I'm just trying to be as real as possible. In addition to my argument sir, I stated earlier that projectiles propelled vertically upwards will likely fall back to their points of propulsion (after providing for air resistance that is) but if we are to accept the theory that the earth spins on its axis 360 degrees in a 24 hour period then this should not be. If i toss a stone up vertically it should not return to me if i were on a stationary point on earth speeding at 400meters per second!

Dapo777: Hahahahahahahahahaha, you make me laugh!

Have u travelled in an aeroplane before? The movement of the aeroplane is faster than the rotation of the earth about it's own axis,Why don't passengers get dizzy? Why don't passengers feel the movement, you would say the plane is not moving abi?
You have been talking like a professor in science Since But you just made a wrong conclusion now.

When the air hostess places a cup of coffee on ur chair as the plane moves,Why didn't the cup fly to the back due to the movement of the plane?

You know So much sciences, how come u don't know that it's only acceleration that can be felt not a constant speed because anything felt is a force and force is mass x acceleration not velocity.
Go and make ur research again and explain Why we don't feel the earth move.

Although I Am convinced about how quick coal is formed what about other substances?

Quite compleling but what implication would constant speeds of up to 400meters per second have on the wind speeds sir and what implications would the resultant wind speeds have on life? Over to you sir.

I'v been up all nite abeg make i go sleep! Make una chop the maths remain o...

HABRUZZY: The weighs of hens eyes are normally distributed with mean 50g and standard deviation 10g.eggs that weigh less than 40g are classified as small while weigh above 65g are classified as large .those which weigh between 40g and 60g are called standard .how many eggs out of 100 will be small and how many will be large?help help

let the random variable be defined as X:

then X~N(50,10)
For small eggs: P(X<40)=P(Z<[40-50]/10)=P(Z<-1)=a
For large eggs P(X>65)=P(Z>[65-50]/10)=P(Z>1.5)=b
For standard eggs P(40<X<65)=P([40-50]/10<Z<[65-50]/10)=P(-1<Z<1.5)=c

The expected number of eggs that would be small and large are:
E(X<40)=N.P(X<40)=100.a
E(X>65)=N.P(X>65)=100.b

calculate a, b and c using the normal distribution table and I guess you are done.

Dapo777: Do you know how scientists derived the age of the earth? If So,how are they being insincere?
I hope you know the age of the oldest rock on earth and how that age was derived? What would make scientists lie about the age of the earth?

Please sir do not be in a haste to accept propositions simply because they were made by persons revered as scientists, in philosophy this would amount to committing the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam!

Always reason out the theories and investigate the evidence that they posit. For example it is said that the earth spins on its axis and that it makes a 360 rotation in 24 hours. I was able to demonstrate that if this were true then a stationary point on earth would move by over 400meters in a second and that equivalent to more than 27kilometers per minute!!! Is that speed not fast enough for even a stationary blind man to notice...but ask yourself, do you notice that your moving that fast!? Your answer is as good as mine, WE MUST BE DOING VERY BAD SCIENCE! It's either the CLOCK is a huge scam or the theory that the earth spins on its axis 360 degrees in a 24 hour period is a monumental HOAX!

Dapo777: Do you know how scientists derived the age of the earth? If So,how are they being insincere?
I hope you know the age of the oldest rock on earth and how that age was derived? What would make scientists lie about the age of the earth?

Bros check the current discourse in cosmology, astro-physics, nuclear physics, chemistry, geology and the other disciplines and you will see that many of the theories that were practically foisted on mankind in the name of reason and experimentation are being threatened with the barrage of evidence being gathered.

Go on youtube and type the age of the earth and check out the arguments put forward by the pros and cons of a young earth.

benbuks: could also be done thus ,

$[√(tanx) /(sinx.cosx) ] dx

take product & ratio with sec^2 x

=> $√(tanx).sec^2 x /tanx dx

=> $sec^2 x /√tanx dx ..........( de-rationalize )

not put tanx = ben

=sec^2 xdx = dben

=>$dben/√ben

= 2√ben + k

hence we have

2√tanx + k

that's it

mehn maths dey ur blood...maths is probably mixed with your blood plasma!!!

jackpot: Nice. Are these two solutions equal?

Sister i dare not try answering that question...proving the equality of the two solutions is mania on an unprecedented level for me right now o! I no wan get headache!!

Anti-God folks time to speak up and challenge the reality and implications of the FACTS, EVIDENCE AND EXPERIMENTATION presented in the videos i just posted...Afterall, from the statements of many on this thread it appears we are all 'GIANTS' in 'PRAISE OF LOGIC AND EVIDENCE'

Watch this video with an open mind and answer the question: why would scientists, people who believe in the rigorous methods of experimentation and reason, ever accept any statement or proposition based on FAITH, FAITH, FAITH and not observable evidence and reason in alignment with evidence staring at them in face?

It would take a LUNY to buy the crap of evolution just because we are scared of the likely reality that a GOD exists somewhere.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ckfrn5-86xU

Here is a man that made a HUGE MESS out of the Darwinian theory of evolution in less than 5 minutes!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8

Do you still think the earth came by a GLORIOUS ACCIDENT and not A SUPREME GOD according to religions such as Islam and Christianity. Well let's hear from PhD holders in Philosophy, Physics, Chemistry and other fields of study who corroborate the view that the earth was fine tuned and hence suggests the present of an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, A SUPREME GOD!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEnJYdakou4

For those who argue that the earth is several billions of years old contrary to biblical and other related religious evidence of a very young earth need to see this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttPuVH4jXc which was done several years ago but simply because scientists bent on disproving the idea of God despite the presence of overwhelming evidences that run against their idea of the age of the earth...

benbuks: $(√tanx) /(sinx.cosx) dx

try...asap.

Alternatively!

∫(√tanx/(sinx.cosx) dx
= ∫(tanx/(sinx.cosx. √tanx) dx
= ∫(1/(cos^2(x). √tanx) dx
= ∫(sec^2(x)/√tanx) dx
= 2√tanx + c

Sometimes the way the brain functions could be funny yet scary . I didn’t envisage this when I tackled the problem initially!

oladistinct: Like u said, let cosk=1/a
Let $=integral sign
>>>$[1/(cosk+cosx)]dx=a$[1/(1+acosx)]dx
Which is the same as a$[1+acosx]^(-1) dx
Using binomial expansion
Let C=combination
a$[1+acosx]^(-1) dx=a$[1+ (-1)C1acosx+(-1)C2acos^2 x+....]dx
Now -1C1=-1 and -1C2=1
>> a$[1+cosx]^(-1) dx=a$[1-acosx+a^2cos^2 x +....]dx
=a[x-asinx+$(a^2 cos^2 x)dx+...] +c
Now cos^2 x=[1+cos2x]/2
>>a$[1+cosx]^(-1) dx=a[x-asinx+(a^2 x)/2 + (a^2 sin2x)/4]+.... +c
Since cosk=1/a >>> a=1/cosk.
Therefore $[1/(cosk+cosx)]=a[x - asinx + (a^2 x)/2 + (a^2 sin2x)/4 + ..... ] + c.

Stunning! I did not think it this way...the only catch is that the final integral would be a series that can only be determined up to a given term.

Dapo777: Ok ooo.
I read one of your posts here.....u seem to know much about the big bang theory,So let me ask you this,how old is the earth?
Billions of years old as scientists have proved or
6000 years old as the Bible let us believe?

Scientists are not being sincere with the true age of the earth. The earth is observed to be loosing its gravitational pull progressively over time and if this is the case then if we were to go back in time, billions of years when the earth was formed the gravitational pull of the earth would have been so strong that it would not have sustained the primitive life forms that evolutionary scientists claim started the life on earth.

The earth's spin on its axis is also waning over time and if were to go back into time billions of years logically we would have an earth with a spin that is capable of generating wind speeds of up to 500miles/hr. Wind speeds of this kind would have resulted in very turbulent and chaotic earth.

The evidence on ground contradicts the theory that the earth is billions of years old.

Dapo777: Hmmmmmm

Although Jesus was a man,he is God......
So he is man and God at the same time?

Yes, ironically, he is man and at the same time God. He resurrected with a human body, he ate with his disciples to prove to them that he was not just a spirit, but a spirit with a fleshly robe (Mark 16: 14; John 20: 19-20).

HABRUZZY: kindly assist God bless
the weight of bournvita is normally distributed with mean of 105g and standard deviation of 30g.for proper classification,Bournvita is divided into three groups,small medium and large.small packets weights less than 70g and large pockets weights morethan 135g.The remaining Bournvita are regarded as medium packets which of the groups has the highest percentage?

let the weight of bournvita which is the random variable here be X
hence
X~N(105,30)
The probability of having small, large and medium sized weights of bournvita respectively would be:
P(X<70)=P(z<[70-105]/30)=P(z<-2.67)=0.0379=3.8% approx.
P(X>135)=P(z>[135-105]/30)=P(z>1)=1-0.84134=0.15866=15.9% approx. and
P(70<X<135)=P([70-105]/30<z<[135-105]/30)=P(-2.67<z<1)=0.84134-0.0379=0.80344=80.3% approx.

The medium sized packs have the highest percentage!

Sombrerogalaxy: I think I made it clear that there is no god, it does not exist! How did I suddenly become a pantheist? And I hope you oblige me on this - what do you believe about god? who/what is the god you believe?

Pardon me but were you not of the view that God exists as a manifestation of the different energies present in the universe and universe itself? If that is your view then you are a Pantheist I believe. Or oh forgive me i am mistaking you for emotional Oh forgive me, my bad.

Well i guess i have no response to your comment simply because i mistook you for another. if emotional had made the comment you just made i would have simply referred him to the comments I made in response to his.

Somberogalaxy, you are entitled to your opinion and i believe you have stated it quite precisely. Mine is and still remains that God exists and that that God is the Trinity - A Divine Family.

Sombrerogalaxy: hmmm...permit me to say a word here. The fundamental difference between science and faith is that when science doesn't know, it seeks. It never gives up, science keeps asking questions and hopefully one day we'll have answers. When faith doesn't know, it simply believes! So the question I'll like to ask you is this - how do you intend to address your lack of knowledge about the existence of Jehova?

Funny sir, you said 'when science doesn't know, it seeks' If i didn't know better I'd have thought you took that right out of Matthew 7: 7...Science and scientists are not so audacious oftentimes sir. The universe generator theory i discussed earlier was science's cheap method of circumventing the question of the origin of the universe and by so doing they created even more questions.

Brother, faith as well never gives up. We keep seeking too...and the strange thing about faith is that we believe first then we see! As for what you call lack of knowledge, I also laugh a little! It is not lack of knowledge, it is the lack of belief in knowledge.

You require that I prove what I know but I require that I believe what I know. So sir I am not fit to prove the knowledge of Jehova rather i believe it and while I know that you are a stickler for proofs, i admire that but unfortunately i cannot help you and since I cannot present a proof (and i doubt anyone can if all the evidences that can be found on the internet are not sound enough) I'd advice that you adhere to your conceptualization of who God is.

I understand that it would be very hard for you to just accept my stance (even if God himself appears to you with a proof), considering that you find joy and solace in Pantheism and not Christianity.

^LMS

Sombrerogalaxy: The christian god is as fake as any of the other gods! A black dragon is no more (or less) a mythical figure than a white dragon or any other type of dragon. The fact that you find the concept of god in different cultures doesn't validate it. A proposition does not become truth because its popular or because it's been around for a long time or because its culled from some ancient scripts!
If you pick up a book to read and you find obvious misinformation on the first page, the second page and more as you flip through, do you take the book and the author serious If on the first page of a simple arithmetic text, you find 1+1=17 and the author continuously builds on that premise, wouldn't it be wise to stop reading it and do something more meaningful with your life? Would you cite such an author as an authority in your work? Would you defer to such an author when you are hard pressed in life?
A god that would take credit for what it did not do, arrogate powers it doesn't have to itself, makes laws he would never keep and shamefully fall below the moral code of his creatures should never be believed!!! Of course, it doesn't exist in the first place.

Oh well bro! No one has a problem with your stance...as long as it won't result in the loss of anyone's life. Like i said, in the words of Aristotle 'it is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it!

macof: A quote from macof's comment: "you didn't address my post, how can we say jehovah exist when we can't use Evidence or logic to prove it's existence?"

Dear Macof, this would be my last argument with you concerning this, because it appears your emotions are climaxing and I cannot fathom the consequences of you getting to the peak of an emotional outburst.

In one of your comments you made the above assertion and in generally I can recast the your question as:

How can we prove the existence of an entity that defies the scientific method?

Well sir, I will proceed with my position by considering two cases in scientific discourse and these cases would be my analogue and would enable me answer your question.

On the origin of existence, science acclaims that the universe began as a singularity with infinite mass and zero volume and hence an infinite density. This state obviously would be unstable and result in a massive expansion process referred to as the Big Bang. Following this were the combined forces of gravitation and expansion which led to the creation of planetary bodies over the course of billions of years.

Now science succeeded in explaining the state of the universe a few second before the Big Bang but they were unable to tell us: what resulted in the singularity that kick started the Big Bang? Scientific reasoning on the origin of the universe is severely attacked by the Kalam argument: which posits two premises and a conclusion: the first two premises are: the universe began to exist and whatever exists must have a cause and the conclusion is that: the universe began to exist and must have a cause. Now if the universe began to exist as a singularity then what was the cause of the singularity? The inability of science to provide an answer to this question using the scientific method puts great holes in the Big Bang theory (No wonder it is still a theory).

The second case, is the law that the universe is fine tuned for existence. This means that certain barometers are set in place to ensure that the universe exists. The violation of any of these barometers would result in the non-existence of the universe as a whole. Now, now, if the universe is fine tuned for existence, the question arises, who did the fine tuning? Who or what fixed the many constants that define the universe with great degrees of accuracy? please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant to confirm this. Some went on to say that a universe generator must be responsible for the fine tuning and that this generator is capable of producing multiple universes, the next question that follows becomes: who or what built the universe generator with the capability of fine tuning multiple universes?

Now science repeatedly has been a culprit of asserting theories that often lead to questions that are testable but beyond the sphere of science and entered the realm of belief. Many scientists when asked what led to the universe would immediately exclaim THE BIG BANG but when asked the questions that ensue for that theory they tell you that they BELIEVE the theory to be true despite the fact that it leads to a state of infinite regress.

Now back to the question: How can i say Jehova exists when he defies the scientific method? I don't know how, just as scientists don't know how the singularity that led to the big bang came about...but I believe! Even as scientists believe!!

macof: Guy answer my question or simply run away.
You are disgracing ur religion with your stupid comments

Don't take it personal bro...we are just stating our positions. We do not need to denigrate one another. We disagree and that is a common phenomenon about life. We do not have to agree but we can yet tolerate one another.

In the words of Aristotle, 'it is the mark of an educated mind, to entertain a thought without accepting it'...

one love bro!

Sombrerogalaxy: Sir, truths are universal, verifiable and coherent! Any hypothesis that aspires to become truth must obey this fundamental principle. Yes, you have the right to have opinions but you do not have the right to call them truths unless they have been empirically verified. Since god exist only outside the realm of reason, why are you trying so hard to validate him through reason? Dots and spheres are real, distinct entities and redistribution of matter is a truth unlike god who doesnt! I think it is mischievous to compare what exist and is subject to empirical laws to another that doesnt exist and is not subject to laws we know about.
I think the issue here is not about your belief rather it is the non-truth and intrinsic contradictions in it.

If you have observed my comments all through you will see that I have never made an attempt to validate the existence of God and/or the existence of the Christian God as the one true God using reason or empirics. As a matter of fact, i have stated repeatedly much to the dismay of others that Christianity and all other religions and philosophical positions on the existence of God are called 'faiths' because they are anchored on the act of believing. If by reason and empirics I can establish the existence of God then we would not have 'faiths' and we would not have 'religions'. So sir, I am not and have not and do not intend to use physical entities, principles and methods of science to prove the existence of God. If you are a logician, you can tell all through in my arguments that I have not done that at all.

In addition, I beg to disagree with your assertion that: 'truths are universal, verifiable and coherent!'. Truths are not universal and not always verifiable or coherent. Karl Popper made us understand that science is a series of refutations and corroborations. If so then what we call truth today remains truth until it is refuted and replaced with a new truth. A good example is the definition of an atom by Dalton, Dalton considered the atom as indivisible and it was at the time accepted as truth but when Rutherford bombarded thin foils with radiation from a radioactive element he discovered that atoms could be split into neutrons, protons and electrons thus invalidating what Dalton must have referred to as truth.

Another good example for the ardent thinker. If the earth rotates 360 degrees in a 24 hour period, as scientists would have us believe then in a second the earth would have moved (360/(24.60.60))=(1/240) degrees. If the radius of the earth as the scientists would have us believe is 6371km approximately then in one second the earth would have moved: (1/240)(1/360)(2)(3.1416)(6371)=0.4633km approximately and this is equivalent to 463.3m. Thus in one second a stationary point on the earth would have moved 463.3meters! Wow, if that were true then if an object is tossed vertically upwards to a height of 10 meters at a mild initial velocity of 10m/s then according to the laws of motion it would take 6 seconds approximately for the object to fall back to the ground and by this time the earth would have moved 2.8km approximately and that distance is far enough for the object thrown upwards not to get back anywhere within 100m radius of the same spot where it was thrown initially! However empirically this is not true, you can try it yourself and check out the metrics.

So sir to a very large extent what we call truth is relative in time and space. However truth, the way you define it cannot be gleaned from religions no matter how compelling and this is because, truth the way you see it as a proposition that has stood the test of repeated testing and experimentation, cannot be consistent with normative thought.

Bro in summary, faiths are faiths, science is science. Faith is accepted without proof but based on belief. Scientific laws are testable and accepted upon rigorous testing. Truth is relative and oftentimes a positive as well as a normative concept.

Dapo777: The question is summed up in this quote 'God is not a hoax but the Christian God is from all evidences I have seen and read so far'

From your quote, I can correctly conclude that you accept the proposition that there is GOD but you do not accept the Christian depiction of God based on the evidences that you have seen and read so far.

So if i am to recast the your quote as a question it would likely be:
If God exists and there are many depictions of God given by many religions then which of these is true and if the true God is the Christian God, what are the evidences that supports it

Well Mr. Dapo, first i'd like to state that evidences are evidences. None of us on this tread has ever had the opportunity to look at the earth from outer space but we believe and accept most of the evidence given to us concerning the earth by scientists, leaving out the prospects that those evidences could be contrived or manipulated. However while we may have some folks on this thread that has been to outer space, I am definitely certain that no one of this thread has been to the fringes of our galaxy to observe the path of the earth in relation to our moon, our star (the sun) and the black hole at the centre of our galaxy. As i speak may thinkers still come up with conjectures concerning the movement of planetary bodies.

On the whole, even science has a certain degree of belief. In the light of the aforementioned I would like to state that the best I can do is present the evidence that the Bible states concerning God. These evidences may not correlate with the evidences that other religions may have found and I would not suggest that you accept the doctrines of Christianity based on the evidences that I provide rather I would suggest that you find it yourself even as you quest for the truth.

In one of your quotes you stated that I my comment suggested that all your family members are sinners. I never said or implied that. What I meant was that: the reason you all went to church was because you believed there was God and that that God must be the God of the Christians. If you all were sinners you would not have bothered going to church in the first place. There are sinners and there are sinners. All mankind are potential sinners but some live perpetually in sin and do not have any intention of changing while some others recognize their potential to sin and seek to avoid sinning. I believe you and your family fall into the latter category and that was why you all went to church.

You asked why the Jesus lamented at Gethsemane and on the cross despite the fact that it was the will of his Father that he should die on the cross? According to the scriptures Jesus is the son of Jehova (John 3: 16) and by virtue of this he is God even as Jehova is God (ofcourse the child of a goat is a goat, the child of a sheep is a sheep, the child of a man is mankind and the child of God is expected to be God). This meant that Jesus has the same abilities as his Father. Jesus could have insulated his flesh from the pain, he could have found a way to circumvent the torture but he had to pass through all these as a price for the sin of the world because without the willful offering of innocent blood there is no atonement for sin (Hebrews 9: 22). This was also prophesied by Isaiah in Isaiah 53:2-5...but who would see all this suffering and not be tempted to reject it. Bible says Jesus was touched with the same temptations even as we are daily (Hebrews 4: 15) and it is expected that even as a man, though he was God, he would be tempted to reject going through all that suffering for a people who are most likely to ultimately reject him...but to prove that he is one with the Father, he prayed that the will of God be done suggesting that though the pangs of pain and torture were already tormenting him he subjected his will to that of his Father (Matthew 26: 39).

On the cross Jesus cried '...father, father why have you forsaken me...' and you may ask, if Jesus was one with his Father why would his father forsake him at such a trying moment. This is the mystery of sin. Many even in the Christendom only see sin as an action that contradicts the dos and don'ts of scripture but even deeper than that sin is like a knife that cuts the Father (Jehova). Everytime a man sins, he literally assaults Jehova (Isaiah 59: 1-2). Sins as ephemeral as taking a piece of meat from the pot without permission, has the same effect on God as robbing a man at gun point! Jehova's holiness is so unthinkably unimaginable that even his angels who are structurally purer than mankind are charged of folly by Jehova (Job 4: 17-18). So it is expected that if God hated sin that much and all the sins of the world was placed on Jesus, that is all the sins of those who would avail the transaction Jesus made on the cross were assigned to Jesus as though Jesus was the person who committed all our sins, then with all that load of sin on Jesus, the Father (Jehova) would not behold him even though he is his son. The only thing that would pacify Jehova would be that Jesus must suffer the same suffering a sinner with all that sin must suffer. First Jesus must suffer abandonment, because God abandoned all that sinned and never repented. Second he must suffer unimaginable pain and mortal damage which those who sinned in the past suffered and lastly he must die. Isaiah 53: 2-5 is, to me, a perfect description of all I have said. So you see he was actually forsaken by God as prophesied by Isaiah but as a man, who felt the pain of torture and rejection like any man may feel, he lamented!

Dapo, of all the religions of the world, I doubt there is any that records the death of a person for another in the manner that the Bible portrays of Jesus Christ. If there are, I would like to know. This makes me conclude that if the death of someone was involved in Christianity and his death was for no reason other than for the atonement of sins of the world, then he worth knowing. Evidences (and you can verify them) of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus include: the shroud of turin , oral tradition handed down by observers of the time, documentations by scholars such as Josephus...etc

Dapo I am not asking that you take my word for it. Seek the truth yourself and find it for yourself, that way you will be willing to hold on to it even till the death.

qstar: ^^^

Guy, forgive me nah. Nobody is contesting the ambassador of fools with you. Have it all bruv. One love

that's great...that means I have no competition. It is even expected that i will have very little competition. The book of 'FOOLS' states in Matthew 7: 14 that I will have very little competition if i decide to walk the way of 'FOOLS'...So as you have admonished I'm gonna have it all ...One love bro, It's a pleasure trading words!