Glycolysis:

Sorry, I have modified the comment,after I read your message again,& figured out your point..

Yea,you're absolutely right on that....
But I strongly believe signs & miracles can't save the soul...
It validate the point that a supernatural being should exist ...
But the puzzle is these ;
Which is the true God (s)among the many that are being presented to us ?
And I think my answer will be these ;
Any of the God that could carry out these three work of grace ;
-salvation
-sanctification &
- Holyspirit baptism...

Speaking from my personal experience....
Others could also have thier own views & opinion..

your answer is biased as you are a Christian. a Muslim bias will make him say the true god is the one that calls humanity to submission for example. other religions would not agree that the true religion is based on salvation, sanctification and holyspirit baptism. it would follow this format.
X says the true religion is the religion that teaches (insert X's religion's doctrines). every religion would claim their doctrine is true, so unless you have a way to prove your doctrine true and theirs false, it would be word against word.

sinequanon:


Why are you prevaricating, lol. I don't want you to "just put" something, that you can later "adjust" or deny.

I want a reasonable example. That would state the name that would appear in the sky, the name of the religion, and the orders, and the language/languages they are written in.

I don't mind hypothetical data, but I don't want something that can shift dramatically. For example, evidence of "what he wants from man" can be rejected on the grounds that it is "only one sentence" and you can claim you were expecting a poem or essay. So, for that reason, I would like, at least, hypothetical data to work with.

I am ...I created this universe and you all. this are my wishes for you to follow.... you should serve me this way....
written in all major languages.

realigning the stars alone is good evidence on its own. spelling out a message with them would be undeniable.

frank317:

Based on claims made na... Are u saying theists should not reject none proven claims? When someone rejects a claim what language should he use to show he disagrees?


So... Should then accept nonsensical unproven clams?


Therefore we should not dismiss nonsensical unproven claims?



God is supposedly a conscious being... If he exists we will not rely on assumptions... Until then all God claims are false based on no prove.

I'm not saying you should accept unproven claims, I'm saying that rejecting them does not equate to falsehood.
you can reject them and they could still be right, so you don't have a base to say the claim is false. you can't say you don't know and at the same time say you know that it is false.

you can dismiss claims that god exists, but saying god does not exist is a different ball game.

saying god doesn't exist is an assertion of fact and burden of proof falls on the claimant to prove this claim. not just relying on absence of evidence.

Glycolysis:

I really don't get your drift ,sir..
The miracle His prophet are to perform is it a prove to validate or invalidate the existence of a supernatural being ?
Because the last time I checked,even spiritualists do "miracles" & signs with wonders..

I will agree that the show of miracles & wonders validate the point that a supernatural being exist ;
Either with a wrong motive or with a good motive...

The prove of a supernatural being inthe Bible goes beyond that....
When we talk about the walk of salvation,sanctification & Holyspirit baptism..those are the three concepts that actually validate the existence of a supernatural being with Good intentions for the souls of men...but as the issue is,sciences can't explain such experience....

show of signs would help confirm that people aren't just making stuff up.
as for the message, you'll have to prove that the doctrine is true.

sinequanon:


Overload, my friend, which is equally vague. All I need is a clear experiment. Not something that will morph and expand after each test.

Which one are you talking about, or is your experiment all of them? If it is all, have you included everything required for your test in your above post?

lemme just put realigning the stars to spell his name and his preferred religion and what he wants from man.

Glycolysis:

What were the test & proofs that could be used to "test & prove" supernatural being (Yahweh) in our contemporary world ?

the miracles his followers were promised to be able to do, the show of power associated with his prophets...

frank317:

Of course they are free to if they want to. But I just think atheists just go a step further to say all God assumptions a false because they have not been proven.


Cool


Yes



This is where u get it wrong. Atheists saying there is no go based on the fact that theists are making empty assumptions can't be wrong. Atheists reject nonsensical God idea... If theists don't keep on making assumptions that there is God, I am sure atheists will not bother if there is God or no God. Atheists are simply asking for prove of claims, and if there is non, the claim is dismissed... I think this is clear.

rejecting god is different from saying there is no god. saying there is no god is a statement of fact, and without proof it is baseless.
if ALL the claims made by ALL the theists are found to be empty and without evidence, it is still NOT a base to conclude that there is no god. the farthest you can go is to state that the existence of god is unlikely and you can disprove their evidences. but once you claim god does not exist, it is a different ball game entirely. once you claim god does not exist, you put yourself under the burden of proof to prove your claim and your proof cannot be the lack of evidence of god because absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

sinequanon:


That wouldn't pass for science. If you did a science experiment to prove the existence of an electron, for example, you'd have to be very precise. You'd have to measure its mass, energy, charge etc.

Please design and describe a specific experiment that tests for god. i.e pick one of your undeniable, unambiguous indicators and create a scientific experiment with it. I am curious.

if god broke the laws of science in presence of all. e.g a person walking on water unaided. an amputee regrowing limbs, realigning the stars to spell his name and preferred religion. causing all the presidential buildings in the world to levitate, just any impossible thing done under strict observation.

hopefulLandlord:
exactly but when people say the universe as we know it had a beginning they quickly conflate it as evidence of it being "created" whereas despite the beginning cosmologists talk about the universe can still be eternal.

having a beginning is not guarantee for being created.

eternal in that sense would mean it existed as raw material then. not in its current form. something or nothing could have acted on it and 'made' it into its current form. it still leaves a lot of room for assumptions.

sinequanon:


Example of what would "prove" that god exists?

something that's not ambiguous.
something undeniable. most likely an act of god himself or through a believer.
e. g the Christian god. in the old testament, he was extremely active. only a mad man would deny his existence. other gods are like this also, the Greek gods, Egyptian gods,... they were all extremely active according to their tales.

Glycolysis:

BTW, I agree that God(when non specific) cannot be proved/disproved with ordinary methods. although I'm divided when the God becomes specific and I'm sure hopefullandlord would disagree since Yahweh is described specifically in the Bible, and different forms of test and proofs are also described in it that can be tested today.

Glycolysis:
OK bro... ..and do have a wonderful day .

sure thing and you also.

Glycolysis:

Lol...
Suddenly,you keyboard can capslock
Engage with him to debate the existence of God ?
We are not going to come to a concensus,even if we debate from now till next century....
My discussion with you centered on a point ;

HOW THE MERE OBSERVATIONAL & TEST PROCEDUREs IN SCIENCES CANT EXPLAIN GOD EXISTENCE & HIS WORK OF GRACE......

If he will pick from there ,let's go ahead ..

Hence,the existence of God in so *illogical* to many people out there....because of the methodology they are applying to explain God's existence is too limited for such process.

So does it mean He still doesn't exist ?

You can't use the Pascal principle of pressure to explain the law of independent assortment of genes ( Mendel second law of genetic ) ! It doesn't work that way....


I guess,he will see these...

my keyboard can't capslock automatically, I had to do it manually.
mention him and ask.

hopefulLandlord:


The problem with the words "Universe had a beginning" is that it misses important words

Cosmologists worth their salt don't say "The universe had a beginning" that's religious statement

Cosmologists say "The universe AS WE KNOW IT had a beginning" The religious people exclude the text in all caps because adding it wouldn't support their own assertion

The difference between the first and the second might look irrelevant on first glance but it actually makes a huge difference on deeper look

Science didn't say the universe didn't exist then or didn't exist in some other form before what they term beginning. infact what science terms beginning is that everything was a singularity. the singularity had been there and started expanding. its the expanding that they call "beginning" but whether what started expanding itself had a beginning or not is inconclusive. what was before it? was anything even before it? is there a "before it"? these are still unanswered

the question are unanswered and any unproved claim about them is just assumption. and it is unlikely science would be able to prove anything since science did not exist at that time the way we know it.
the most logical conclusion is that we don't know.
any other thing is an assumption except the claimer finds a way to prove it without doubt.
there could be god, there could be no god, there could be something, there could be nothing, there could be anything. they are all possibilities but we don't know for sure unless someone provides proof for which of the possibilities it is.

hopefulLandlord:


The universe as we know it having a beginning doesn't mean its created though. saying it had some beginning therefore its created his equivocation and false equivalence

I know it does not have to mean it was created. I allow the possibility of both our universe being created and it not being created.

I. e it is possible that the universe was created and this would require a creator.

it is also possible that our universe was not created ( I don't mean eternal, I mean nothing caused the beginning), and this would show no creator created the universe.

Dalamama:


Theistic claims are empty. They are man made claims all of them. You know the universe had a beginning or you believe the opinion of others that claim it has a beginning? Show me the beginning of the universe since it's something you know. Show me the universe beginning. People have stated that the universe started expanding at a point and that what it expanded from is what they do not know, others have stated other wise. The universe having a beggining is not an established scientific fact talk more of t being created.

I told you I want to know things not just believe them.

bold words=beginning of the universe.


theistic claims are empty but these claims below are not
:

'The universe could be eternal, the universe could be created by intelligent beings that exist in another .ore advanced universe outside our own.'

hopefulLandlord:


so proving the universe isn't created doesn't invalidate god then?

proving our universe wasn't created does invalidate god.

our universe isn't eternal, it had a beginning.
there are only two options.
it was either created or not created.
if it was created, a creator of the universe is necessary, if it wasn't, no creator is necessary.

an eternal universe does not need to be created. so a creator is not possible.

I mixed my definition of god in the last post.
I've been using the term 'god' to mean creator of the universe. so if the universe is eternal, there is no god.

hopefulLandlord:

so you agree god can still exist despite the universe being eternal?

yes. they would be co-eternal.

Dalamama:


God and the creation of the universe are two separate things. The universe could be eternal and God could still exist for example. You are conflating two different issues here.

I don't know of the universe was created has nothing to do with my disbelief in Gods. The universe could be eternal, the universe could be created by intelligent beings that exist in another .ore advanced universe outside our own. There are many possibilities.

the universe is not eternal. we know it had a beginning. god and the creation of the universe are related because god is title for creator of the universe. if the universe was created, the one who created the universe is god. if it wasn't created, then there is no god.


now you are also making assumptions here. that's the point. it COULD be. you are very dismissive of the idea of god creating the universe, but you accept the possibility of these assumptions. if you are willing to accept these possibilities, what makes god so different?

BTW, the universe being created by intelligent beings from another universe would mean those beings are gods... afterall, they created the universe. you are also willing to consider this possibility even when there is an obvious question of who created the other universe.
if you can consider the this possibility, why are you extremely dismissive of theistic claims?

hopefulLandlord:


Does an eternal universe invalidate god's existence?

not necessarily. but since we know our universe had a beginning, it isn't eternal.

.

hopefulLandlord:

Where them dey?

glycolysis, see someone that is ready to engage you about Yahweh.

hopefulLandlord:
How does universe not being created invalidate god?

if the universe wasn't created, there would be no need for a god.
the basic foundation of god is that he created the universe. if you can prove that the universe wasn't created, you have proved there was no creator of the universe.

Glycolysis:

if you are interested in Bible God, hopefullandlord should be game.

Glycolysis:

No I don't get the idea,because it's different personality we are talking about here.
God & god are not the same..

also the person that drew me into the discussion specifically said he isn't talking about Bible God.

Glycolysis:

Sorry ,I think we are on different page here...
god & God...
You're talking about god..
I'm talking about God....God of the Bible to be specific here.
Two different existence...
But if you want to bring on the predictable response I suspect,then we are totally offkey in these discussion..

my keypad doesn't automatically uppercase. you would also notice my sentences don't start with capital letters after fullstops. still you get the idea of what I'm talking about.

also the person that drew me into the discussion specifically said he isn't talking about Bible God.

frank317:


Him saying there is no God implies that none has been proven... No one knows if the universe was created or not... Nonsensical assumptive claims must be dismisses

him saying there is no god means nothing other than there is no god.
saying there is no god implies that it has been proved that there is no god.

that none have been proven does not mean there is no god.
absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

no one knows, so you can't claim it was created, neither can you claim it wasn't.
you can't claim there is god, neither can you claim there is no god. dismissal does not equate falsehood.

frank317:


In this case agnostic is more like atheism... The fact is that everyone does not know... However when same people who do know make assumptions and call it fact, people who do not also know will ask them for proof and reject the assumption if none is given...like wise the agnostic who says he does not know,. Saying he does not know also implies that rejects the notion that there is God...

All these are really long unnecessary labelling and stories... If anyone says there is God, he should prove it, otherwise he is making false claim... Simple.

or it's atheism that is acting both as agnosticism and atheism at once.

you say everyone does not know. and I agree.

1.do you agree that the theists who say there is god are making empty assumptions?
2. do you agree that atheists who say there is no god are making empty assumptions?

Dalamama:


You've failed to show where I've said that the universe wasn't created. Am an atheist because I don't believe in the existence of Gods. There is no evidence provided to show that the universe was created. Only empty assumptions.

you saying there is no god implies the universe wasn't created.

but since you say your position is 'I don't know', then you are agnostic. this means you have no business saying god exists or god doesn't exist. you are only in position to ask for evidence.

I agree. they are empty assumptions. but since you are agnostic(you don't know group), you don't make empty assumptions like: 'there is god', 'the universe was created', 'there is no god', and 'the universe was not created'. you only ask for evidence from those who make empty assumptions.

HardMirror:
With sincerity and delight i want to congratulate my dear muslim brothers and sisters. Home and abroad for another Eid Allah as granted us to be part of. Eid Mubarak!

And to our noble brethren in far away Meccah who are on hajj. May allah count it as ibahdah for them.

Hajj is a time to be tuned with Almighty Allah. And one of the rites is the popular stoning of the devil.

it is heart breaking and sad to see christians, atheists and unbelievers, infidels if you choose to call them that,... all laughing at the millions of faithfuls that are caring out this sacred act of pelting the devil with pebbles.
This is no joking matter. This is a serious act which calls for our solemn reflection and thoughts.


Many among those stoning the devil are DOCTORS, LAWYERS, SCIENTISTS, PROFFESORS, intellectuals, leaders, oldmen and women!


This should be a lesson that stvpidity has no age limit or profession or any boundaries.

Anyone can be fooolish.

This is an act that should instead remind us that majority are not always right. That you have christian scientists that believe in the rubbish in the bible, does not mean they are right.

Logic and only logic can save humanity from the fooolishness that comes with religion.


Think about this.

this is a point I like making. people are intelligent irrespective of religious beliefs.
no single group have monopoly on science/knowledge.
religious beliefs is a different issue on its own.
anybody thinking being intelligent is a function of belief is acting blind.

HardMirror:
lol! He thinks i am a muslim.

the op isn't even long.

Nigeria has a big problem on her hands if this is how citizens act.

nellyelitz:
The OP is madd and he should also be stoned. tunda fire that ur black forehead. a decendant of a paedophile and dirty bearded terror4st.

why don't people actually read