₦airaland Forum

shadeyinka:
And if it's about me not stupidly answering your questions, I'll give you what the wisest man once said.

Mat 22:17-22:
"Tell us therefore, What think you? Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said,
Why tempt you me, you hypocrites? Show me the tribute money. And they brought to him a penny. And he said to them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say to him, Caesar's. Then said he to them, Render therefore to Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's.
When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left him, and went their way."

You would have in your wisdom answered YES or NO!

SMH!

Well, if the alleged Jesus was wise as you say, he could have simply replied " Yes, it's lawful to give Ceasar tribute and went about his business.

Like you have been doing, the alleged wise Jesus however, instead of answering a simple question, had to create his own question from his perception of the reason behind the question asked him. Then he proceeded to answer questions noone asked him and sneaked in God into the scenario even when no-one asked him anything about God.

1) No-one asked him a question about coin in the scenario.
2) No-one asked him a question about God in the scenario.


So, Yes; in my wisdom, I would have said "Yes, it is lawful to give tribute to Ceaser." Or "No, it is unlawful to give tribute to Ceaser!" and proceed to give my reasons if demanded/required.

As tribute goes, money is not the only means of paying tribute.
Ceaser could be King/Emperor and his head may not be the image on the existing legal tender at the time. In otherwords, the image of the sun could be on the legal tender, and therefore the statement of giving to Ceasar what belongs to Ceaser because his head is on the coin becomes meaningless.

Finally, when, the alleged wise Jesus asked them:
Whose is this image and superscription?
Their reply= "Ceaser's."
Simple and straightforward!
They didn't start perceiving what's in the mind of the alleged wise Jesus nor why he asked the question. They didn't start describing the coin or start narrating how the coin was made or if it's silver or gold coin or how the image on the coin looked like when you bent it in some manner. They gave a simple and straightforward reply...

shadeyinka:
No!
In situations when your words could be misrepresented. Clarifications with WORDs are gold nuggets.

Only a brute will mindlessly say YES or NO to all questions irrespective of the purpose of the question.

Well, I will leave you and your dogma with this wise saying:

"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn." - Alvin Toffler.

shadeyinka:
You needn't get angry on a faceless medium that someone didn't answer a question exactly as you want.

So you are a mind-reader too? Lol!
I don't know what gave you the impression, but whatever it is, i can assure you that nothing you have said can elicit such vice from me.

Some answers are already apparent from the response.
Example:

Question:
Did you eat Mama Sule's Pounded Yam?
Answer:
The food wasn't even delicious: it tasted of kerosine.

You would have expected a YES or NO as an answer. But the response has given you what you need plus other information.

But, is the response the answer to the question asked?

"The food wasn't even delicious: it tasted of kerosine" can never be the answer to => Did you eat Mama Sule's Pounded Yam?

The right way to make your answer correlate correctly would have been:
Question- Did you eat Mama Sule's Pounded Yam?
Answers: - Yes/Yeah.
- Yes/Yeah, I ate Mama Sule's pounded
yam.
- Yes/Yeah I did.
- No/Nah.
- No/Nah, I didn't.
- No/Nah, I didn't eat Mama Sule's
pounded yam.

After answering the real question, your addendum can then come in Viz:
Question- Did you eat Mama Sule's Pounded Yam?
Answers: -

Yes/Yeah. The food wasn't even delicious, it tasted of kerosine.

-

Yes/Yeah, I ate Mama Sule's 
                    pounded yam. The food wasn't even 
                    delicious, it tasted of kerosine.

- Yes/Yeah I did. The food wasn't 
                even  delicious, it tasted of kerosine.
                 

It's really that simple, but somehow you are making a simple thing seem like a complex/complicated stuff.

@Seun,
Don't you think that History Section is a welcome addition to the platform?

shadeyinka:
All these I agree with except that
1. Here is no court: there is no rules, you take what you are given and give what you can
2. There is no umpire (judge) to overrule or not to overrule any question

Simple etiquette also envisages that when asked a question, you answer based on what is asked of you.
It is only after answering the question you were asked that you can now put any other addendum (If necessary/required.)

shadeyinka:
Even in the courts of law, not every question is allowed to proceed in a YES or NO fashion.
That's why the prosecutor/defence attorney will raise objections to some questions whose YES or NO answer would be damning without an explanation.

By the way, I did not and will not attack your personality!

1) Courts have Examination of Witness procedures.
Our interaction is not an Examination-in-Chief, Cross-examination or Re-examination; and neither are you a witness.

2) Irrelevant Objections get overruled.

3) When a question demand's a Yes or No answer in Court, a Yes or No reply must be given. It is up to the court to decide to grant you permission to say any other thing you think you must say.

I hope you do keep that in mind.

shadeyinka:
Your question has been answered. If you don't like it too bad!

Okay.

shadeyinka:
As if I am in your chambers for interrogation! You are too full of yourself!

It's not about me bro. You are now diverting, and deflecting just like i have been pointing out since. Don't make it about me bro. What you are doing now it's an old and retarded tactics used by people who don't know how to answer direct straight to the point questions.
In Logic, it's called ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

The time it took you to make the two post's avoiding the question and attacking my personality would have been used to answer the question.
It's a Yes or No question, and i just repeated what you already stated. So, i don't understand why it is now hard for you to confirm your own statement.

shadeyinka:
You don't have to accept my "definition". I have only given you an example of how what I call objective experience of God could be.

That's not my question...
Can you at least try and always stick to questions asked please?

sisisioge:
Hmmm....the physical assets of the Ghanian ladies are a disadvantage to this particular profession. You dont need the big yansh to uphold the law, infact it becomes a liability in the battle field. Have you seen a big yansh giving an efficient chase before? No nau.

Nigeria Police ladies all the way

Exactly my thoughts too. The Nigerian police girls are actually the ones physically fit for the profession, and better disposed.
How orobo wan take pursue criminal with her big body?

shadeyinka:
When your knowledge of God comes with a physical and spectacular experience.

Example:
Saul had a spectacular experience that resulted in his blindness and later sightedness.
Acts 9:3-9:
"As he journeyed to Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven shined around him. He fell to the earth and heard a voice saying:»Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?«»Who are you Lord?«He asked. The Lord said:»I am Jesus whom you persecute.»Get up and go into the city, and it will be told to you what you must do .«The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Saul got up from the ground. Even though he opened his eyes, he saw nothing. They led him by the hand into Damascus. He went for three days without sight. He did not eat or drink."

By this quotation, do you believe you have given a definitive answer to the objective experience of God?

shadeyinka:
Your answer:
It is impossible to objectively prove the existence of God with science!

Good!!!

shadeyinka:
God had always existed. QED.

Can you prove your assertion with verifiable data accepted/acceptable in the science community?
or
What scientifically proven method of understanding phenomenon helped you arrive at the above conclusion?

shadeyinka:
I said "Subjective and Objective experience of God"!

What do you mean by Objective Experience of God?

aadoiza:
Okay, I'm dodging. Is that better?

Isn't obvious?
Good thing you have owned up to it... A good trait by the way!

aadoiza:
I didn't answer your questions because I know where this is going.
I could never convince a materialist of the reality of spiritism, for spiritism do not have material proofs. And this is me being honest, except you don't like honesty.

I really don't understand you people honestly.

Does it mean anytime someone asks you question, you automatically assume things ? Because I'm very sure that there was no where in the question I asked you to convince me

I asked you very simple questions bro, and I'm sure the questions should easily be answered by someone who made the claim you made earlier. You said you have found God as is insinuated in your reply I first quoted which necessited the questions I asked you.

The only thing I'm seeing here is you dodging the questions. You are just deflecting, that's all, and it has nothing to do with me.
In all my interactions with religious peeps:
- those who have nothing to say always defer to this your dodging pattern!
- Those who know zero about their religious beliefs defer to this dodging pattern.
- Those who have something to say but know that it can't convince a fly always defer to this dodging pattern.

aadoiza:
Honestly Mike, I couldn't answer these questions to your satisfaction, as you're a materialist. This will only descend into the usual back-and-forth between God and no-god believers.
However, I can tell you this: you're never gonna find God on the Internet. You will have to dedicate most of your life to His course to find Him, and when you do, You will never see Him in the flesh.
Furthermore, God will never come to you to make a material impact. He will do so only through agency.
I would have shared some stories but since God was not physically present in any of them , atheists would always find silly excuses to dismiss them. So what's the point?

You are answering questions I didn't ask you bro. You don't know what the outcome of your reply will elicit from me, so why are you speaking for me?
I

aadoiza:
They will not look for it, but rather wasting away their lifes on a faceless forum demanding for the coordinates of God's location, or even more foolishly for a visit from him in their homes.
I don't think I can ever have enough of atheists' foolishness on this forum. Their foolishness sometimes fills my day with laughter. May God forgive me.

1) - Have you found God?
- Have you seen God?
- Have you heard from God before in your
entire life?
- Have you felt God before in your entire life?
- If you have felt God, what exactly did you feel?

2) - How did you find God?
- What did he look like when you saw him?
- What did he sound like when you heard him?
- How did you realise what you are feeling was
God?

3) - In what ways does God manifest himself in
your life?
- What is the most visible thing that is a direct
resultant of your meeting with God?

I'm sure as a wise man, you don't need the bible to answer the above questions sincerely as someone who has found God.

shadeyinka:
1. I never ever said nor insinuated that God came out of nothing. God had always existed.

Lol... Please try and show someone else this thing you posted.
This is called speaking from both sides of your mouth bro.
Logic 101, Something cannot be and not be!!!
How can you say that "God has always existed" and yet say "i never ever said nor insinuated that God came out of nothing?"
Does this make sense to you? cuz it doesn't make sense to me except you care to clarify what you meant.

shadeyinka:
2. Every physical thing (matter) has an origin. This is an infallible statement.
If God was physical, He aught to be bound by this and also have an origin. But God is NOT physical hence He doesn't have to have an origin. Has any one described God as being made of matter?

I know that there is no scientist in this world that will proceed on a journey of discovery by making definite assertions.
You can't start a hypothesis by making definite assertion and then end it with an illogical conclusion.
Science doesn't go about making illogical conclusion from logical assertions, neither does science start/end theories with God did or God didn't do lines.
Now, you said God is not physical, hence he doesn't have to have an origin. Your statement will then also mean that because Love, hate, Rudeness, Proudness, Respect, Pride, Angry, Loyalty and Stupidity. sound, etc are not physical concept's, they also have no origin.
Does this make sense to you?

shadeyinka:
A simple YES or NO question assumes that the Postulate is VALID as it is Reasonable AND has only two outcomes. What if the question is NOT reasonable, then the "student" may need to lecture the "lecturer".

Nobody asked you if the postulate is Valid or not my friend. You are the one confusing yourself like i have been saying.
When someone walks up to you and ask you if the shirt they are wearing matched their trouser, the logical answer is to tell them Yes/No. You don't start telling them the shirt would have matched better with XYZ trouser as that was not the question.
However, this is what you are always doing, and continuously surprised that it's like a trait for you seeing as you do it repeatedly over and over again.
For example, look at This below:

shadeyinka:
We know that only the four colours of Red, Green, Yellow and White exist in the universe. Do you agree that houses can only be painted with any of these four colours?

The question above is like your question. Saying YES is an agreement that the postulate is correct. Saying NO is not a complete answer except with explanation that there are more than four colours of red,free, yellow and white exist.

That is what I have done.

In your words!!!


Then, you proceeded into repeating same trait I talked about earlier... See below:

shadeyinka:
Your so called question again:

If God is an Uncreated First Cause as you say, if that notion is hypothetically believed to be true,
then
The Universe itself existing as an Uncreated First Cause is also a totally logical reasoning to concede too.

The second highlight in YELLOW IS WRONG and INVALID!
Why!?
1. The big bang occured about 14.8billion years ago
2. The universe will dissipate into nothing showing that it isn't eternal.

Based on the scientific reasons above
Your answer is a BIG FAT NO!

You see exactly what I'm talking about. You create questions for yourself, then you answer them... Questions not asked.
How can the second highlight in yellow be false when it is not independent of the first highlight in yellow?
Don't you understand that my so-called question is just one sentence, not two different sentences?
Did i ask you questions about the big bang or any big bang related ish?

How can you bring in big bang theory to justify a theological thesis seeing as Uncreated First Cause is not a scientific position/fact or theory? Does Big bang concern itself with Goddidit?

shadeyinka:
You insinuate that I wrongfully use science to postulate two wrong conclusions.
Since you know more science as a "learned man", would you please contradict the following scientifically based statements of mine
1. The universe has a beginning!
2. The universe will have an end!

Well, for a start, the Big Bang theory is not 100% proven as at this date. Therefore, your statements are scientifically inconceivable/laughable at the least.

The fact that you are propagating it as a certainty shows exactly the flaw in your logical reasoning, which is only seen in religious indoctrinated adherents.
You always have the habit of saying thing's as certainty yet provide no tangible fact/evidence to prove your assertions.

Your English language comprehension should be better than mine. The fact that you ignored the parentheses where I qualified the definition of Creator-God suggest that you have a sinister bias that abhors logical correctness. If not, would you then logically or scientifically answer the following
1. Was there "something" existing before the big-bang that initiated the sudden inflation/expansion of the universe?
2. Do you think "that something" will be subject to the natural (physical, chemical) laws?

My answer to both questions is "No, i don't know."
My question to you:
How did you come to the conclusion that there was something existing before the Big bang that/which initiated the expansion of the universe?

I told you a filling of gaps with God/gods can only be said to be true if there is no basis (subjective or objective experience of God) to come to such a conclusion. If you don't have such experience, look for it!

Lol, seriously? Objective experience of God? This is a new one.
Obviously, you still don't understand what God of the Gap's is all about still.
God of the Gap's operate on area's of our life/universe where science has not yet debunked/understand.
In other words, religion leans heavily on area's we do not yet understand. God is used to explain away things man do not yet understand.
However, with every new discovery, the religious god's are relegated further back to irrelevance. In other words, as the previously unexplained gaps in our knowledge of the universe is filled with proven facts, Gap's filled with religious superstitions and Goddidit are eradicated along the way, losing relevance.
Before the law of planetary motions, people believed angels moved the planets, alongside whatever superstitious belief's that pervaded then.

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand.
Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out."
—Richard Feynman

shadeyinka:
I had to give you the basis to aid your understanding.

It's not me you are aiding his understanding bro. What you are doing is running round and round in a circle, beating around the bush and then coming up with unrelated discourse.
You had to go and Google the estimated age of the universe as we know it to support your claim that the universe has a beginning... I expected you to quote the bible to support your claim as a christian.
You have already shown that the 5000yrs stated with certainty by your bible as the age of the universe is wrong, and therefore the basis of your belief system is rooted in false grounds.
I just didn't want to push it.

1. The Universe has a beginning and is coming to an end. (This is scientifically proved)

Here again, you try to wrongly use science to justify and lay a false foundation.
Of course, your two conclusions above is scientifically wrong and totally misinforming. You should actually read up/research on the Big bang theory, and get yourself reorientated instead of making false assertions and presenting it as true because you want to use it as a basis to not answer a very simple question.

2. If the Creator-God (that thing that caused the universe to suddenly start expanding) existed before the universe, He ain't in the same class as the universe.

This Creationist Christians... Lol, this is absurd and an insult on all grounds of seeking knowledge.
What you are saying sound's like:
If the Creator-Lizard (that thing that caused the universe to suddenly start expanding) existed before the universe, He ain't in the same class as the universe.
and this:
[/b] If the Creator-Millipede (that thing that caused the universe to suddenly start expanding) existed before the universe, He ain't in the same class as the universe..[/b]
and this:
[/b] If the Creator-Fish (that thing that caused the universe to suddenly start expanding) existed before the universe, He ain't in the same class as the universe..[/b]
I hope the three examples make sense to you too.

3. Creator-Fish thus cannot be said to require a Creator because an infinite regression is Logically IMPOSSIBLE.

Please do well to read about God of the Gap's fallacy... I can't be the only one burdened with pointing them out for you.
Apparently, according to you, God came out of nothing. But to justify it logically since something cannot come out of nothing, you have to subscribe to the view that he is the Creator that doesn't require a creator. Yet, you don't see how this is a God of the Gap's fallacy?
I mean, the logical reasoning to subscribe to here would have been that "you don't know yet how God came to be!"
But, your religious indoctrination has caused you to fill the gap with what seemed feasible within the confines of your religious doctrines.

As a lawyer, I expect that you can logically Wade through this.

It's NOT a yes or no question for the universe certainly has a Cause and an Origin.

Lol...
I can't help but laugh out really loud bro For someone who said:
"As a lawyer, I expect that you can logically Wade through this"
You find it hard to answer a "Yes or No" question.
If you are asked a yes or no question, you answer as you are asked in my profession.
If a question requires an open-ended answer, you will be told same...
You were asked a simple question bro, and it requires a Yes/No answer. Writing long epistles is how you fail exam or in my profession, give out details which will be used against you.

It's NOT a yes or no question for the universe certainly has a Cause and an Origin.

The Universe DOES NOT exist as an Uncreated First Cause! It is a scientific fallacy!

What i gave you my friend is a hypothetical question.
Hypothetical questions are replied with hypothetical answers.

Your two definite assertions can also be read like this:

It's NOT a yes or no question for God certainly has a Cause and an Origin.

God DOES NOT exist as an Uncreated First Cause! It is a scientific fallacy.

And it will also be true.

Peace!!!

shadeyinka:
By the way: scientifically the age of the universe is about 14.8 billion years ago

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


I think you are the one missing the logical flow. I have in logical terms explained the scientific basis of the temporal nature of the universe. If the universe is temporal, it cannot then have always existed.

Let me break it down again:

If the universe had always exist, it must by implication last FOREVER.
But
The law of entropy shows us that the universe CANNOT last forever. The entropy of the universe is increasing continuously (in lay man's terms, the universe is disintegrating continuously).

If the universe will cease to exist in the future, how can it have an infinite past?

Also, galaxies of the universe have been shown with enough evidence that they are drifting apart. In other words, the universe is EXPANDING.

If the universe is expanding, trace it back in time, you'll find an epicenter. This epicenter is the minimum the universe will ever be in size and the time is the time of the big bang.

I said:

Of course, you should know that I speak of myself inclusive. I don't just have a head knowledge of God, I have a relationship with Him. I have said before: let atheists find their own experience.

As a proof, check a snippet of what I said earlier:



Has any theist you know described a God/god made of material things?

If God isn't material then do you think the physical laws hold on Him?

Think about this:
It is logical to speak about the origin of matter. Is it logical to speak about the origin of that which exist as an ordering force before matter?

If yes, on what basis?
(FYI: your rules of existence differ)

My brother, the question requires a "Yes" or "No" answer biko.
You are talking about things i didn't ask you, answering questions that you laid your own foundations to answer, answering and emphasizing on things that just stand to give you a leeway to explain away things i didn't ask you questions about.
You are talking about the God of the Gap's theory when obviously, you don't even understand what God of the Gap's theory is about nor have you taken your time to actually read on the subject. For, if you have done, you wouldn't still be committing the fallacy over and over and over again... Na wao.

A fallacy is a cog in the wheel of logical reasoning. How can you say your reasoning is sound when in fact you are breaking one of the key rules of logical reasoning by committing a fallacy?
This is not rocket science now!!!


For emphasis sake, this is the question again:

- If God is an Uncreated First Cause as you say, if that notion is hypothetically believed to be true, then The Universe itself existing as an Uncreated First Cause is also a totally logical reasoning to concede too.

Yes or No?

Let's stick to answering what is asked rather than what is not asked or epistle's to answer simple question.

shadeyinka:
Don't forget I told you that several people have personal relationships with this God. If we say anything however remotely scientific about God, it's not just a "God of the gaps fallacy". It is a statement based on knowledge.

I do NOT know who the Chief proponent of this argument of "Uncaused First-Cause". It can however be seen through logic alone.

Scientifically, it can be shown that
1. Matter exists
2. Matter had not always existed
3. The origin can be traced back to about 14 billion years ago.
4. The universe started from a pin point singleton/singularity which inflated/expanded to form the stars and planets.

NOW,
1. Whatever initiated this expansion/inflation does not follow the rule of extant Scientific laws.
2. It is thus illogical to point to theists of using the "God of the gaps fallacy": as there is no science in the first place.
Does science apply to spirits?
3. Whatever initiated the formation of the universe is beyond time or the laws of science.

Now you say:

But science already proved that the universe has an origin.
The law entropy says the Universe cannot exist forever. If the universe created itself, then it must remain forever. So, you see why it cannot be conceded that the universe self existed.

Do you think ORDER can come out of disorder without a constraining ordering force from the outside?

Since infinite regress isn't possible as per the origin of the universe, there must be a START POINT of everything. This start point must be
1. Beyond matter
2. Uncaused
3. First-Cause of everything
4. Powerful
5. Intelligent
6. Not bound by time

Lol... Guy, at this point, i still don't understand why you are not seeing the flaw in your own logic.
My question is:

- If you find it easy to believe that God is an Uncreated First Cause, you shouldn't find it hard to believe that the Universe is also an Uncreated First Cause right?
I mean, if God is an Uncreated First Cause as you say, if that notion is hypothetically believed to be true, then The Universe itself existing as an Uncreated First Cause is also a totally logical reasoning to concede too, operating on the same hypothesis, isn't it?




By the way, where did Science prove with certainty that it knows the origin of the universe? Lol.
By saying, Science has already stated that it knows the origin of the universe, you wanted to indirectly deflect the question. But science hasn't stated that.
It's just two exact phenomena placed side by side, but see how you are playing selective bias?
It's easy for you to align with one but deny the other because it serves your religious education better.
Then you also say some people have personal relationship with this God... Emphasis on some people, but not you.
This is the flaw in your logical reasoning bro, I hope you do begin to realise/detect them.

shadeyinka:
You have repeated the same question for which you'll receive an answer.
1. If this Being was made of matter, then it makes sense for it to have an origin as ALL materials trace their origin to the big bang
2. It may interest you to know that TIME originated with the creation of matter
3. This Being must have to exist in the timeless past before the creation of time.
4. Since infinite regress is impossible with respect to the origin of things, ALL existence must originate from/ at a point.

At that point, you have an Uncreated First-Cause of Everything. That Uncreated First-Cause is what we describe as God!

This Uncreated First-Cause is a Being because He is a self existent Consciousness!


You are a lawyer, I believe you can breakdown this into simple comprehendsion

That repetition was probably a bug in the platform.

Uncreated First Cause?
First of all, who is the Chief proponent of this argument? Thomas Aquinas, a theological philosopher.
You are still swimming in the God of the gap waters bro.
Uncreated First Cause is still an indirect way of trying to scientifically explain the origin of the universe while also failing at it repeatedly. At the end of the day, the explanation always leads to trying to justify the fact that the religious God created the universe.

- If you find it easy to believe that God is an Uncreated First Cause, you shouldn't find it hard to believe that the Universe is also an Uncreated First Cause right?
I mean, if God is an Uncreated First Cause as you say, if that notion is hypothetically believed to be true, then The Universe itself existing as an Uncreated First Cause is also a totally logical reasoning to concede too, operating on the same hypothesis, isn't it?

[/b]

shadeyinka:
God of the gap theory!! !!??
I laugh like a jackal. On a serious note, "the god of the gaps fallacy" is true only when
1. There is no reason other than gaps in scientific knowledge for a person to fix in God/gods as the plug in the gap.
2. The person in question has no relationship with God other than by definition of who God is supposed to be.

I will submit that quite a "bus-load" of people have a relationship with this God AND know Him. God is known usually on a subjective basis. The assumption of atheists is that since they have neither any objective nor subjective experience of God, the same applies to every one else.

You said:


Based on every extant law of science, it cannot be a [b]something because it will lead to an infinite regress which is logically and scientifically impossible. If it is something, it must be a constant and the question should be what initiated the change in the something to form the universe.

"We don't have a scientific explanation of the origin of everything" is a better phrase than "I/We don't know!". When atheists say "we don't know", they actually mean "we don't know but we know it cannot be God!". Don't you think the phase "we don't know" cannot be the proof that God doesn't exist!

An atheist should seek for his own experience!

Now
In summary:Things you must know is
1. Something/Someone initiated the expansion of the universe
2. Whatever that thing/Personality is cannot be subject to the physical laws we know it.
3. Since an infinite regression is impossible, that thing/Personality is the Originator/Creator of the universe.
4. There are several reasons for one to believe that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being

So, if this your hypothesis that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being is true, don't you think it also begs the question:
"How did this Originator come about?"

shadeyinka:
God of the gap theory!! !!??
I laugh like a jackal. On a serious note, "the god of the gaps fallacy" is true only when
1. There is no reason other than gaps in scientific knowledge for a person to fix in God/gods as the plug in the gap.
2. The person in question has no relationship with God other than by definition of who God is supposed to be.

I will submit that quite a "bus-load" of people have a relationship with this God AND know Him. God is known usually on a subjective basis. The assumption of atheists is that since they have neither any objective nor subjective experience of God, the same applies to every one else.

You said:


Based on every extant law of science, it cannot be a [b]something because it will lead to an infinite regress which is logically and scientifically impossible. If it is something, it must be a constant and the question should be what initiated the change in the something to form the universe.

"We don't have a scientific explanation of the origin of everything" is a better phrase than "I/We don't know!". When atheists say "we don't know", they actually mean "we don't know but we know it cannot be God!". Don't you think the phase "we don't know" cannot be the proof that God doesn't exist!

An atheist should seek for his own experience!

Now
In summary:Things you must know is
1. Something/Someone initiated the expansion of the universe
2. Whatever that thing/Personality is cannot be subject to the physical laws we know it.
3. Since an infinite regression is impossible, that thing/Personality is the Originator/Creator of the universe.
4. There are several reasons for one to believe that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being

So, if this your hypothesis that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being is true, don't you think it also begs the question:
"How did this Originator come about?"[/b]

shadeyinka:
God of the gap theory!! !!??
I laugh like a jackal. On a serious note, "the god of the gaps fallacy" is true only when
1. There is no reason other than gaps in scientific knowledge for a person to fix in God/gods as the plug in the gap.
2. The person in question has no relationship with God other than by definition of who God is supposed to be.

I will submit that quite a "bus-load" of people have a relationship with this God AND know Him. God is known usually on a subjective basis. The assumption of atheists is that since they have neither any objective nor subjective experience of God, the same applies to every one else.

You said:


Based on every extant law of science, it cannot be a something because it will lead to an infinite regress which is logically and scientifically impossible. If it is something, it must be a constant and the question should be what initiated the change in the something to form the universe.

"We don't have a scientific explanation of the origin of everything" is a better phrase than "I/We don't know!". When atheists say "we don't know", they actually mean "we don't know but we know it cannot be God!". Don't you think the phase "we don't know" cannot be the proof that God doesn't exist!

An atheist should seek for his own experience!

Now
In summary:Things you must know is
1. Something/Someone initiated the expansion of the universe
2. Whatever that thing/Personality is cannot be subject to the physical laws we know it.
3. Since an infinite regression is impossible, that thing/Personality is the Originator/Creator of the universe.
4. There are several reasons for one to believe that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being

So, if this your hypothesis that this Originator of the Universe is not a thing but a Being is true, don't you think it also begs the following question:
"How did this Originator come about?

shadeyinka:
I think you forget that sometimes a single word can have more than one meaning.
Heaven=Spiritual Abode of God
Heaven=Sky
Heaven=Space
I am not sure where the bible describes heaven as "Heavenly Bodies" (Not sure it exists like that)
You claim I now know because "science and technology has made it possible for you to know". That may not be correct. Of cause Science helps me to sometimes comprehend spiritual truths and there is no crime in that because spirituality isnt opposed to scientific knowledge . For instance the concept of trinity can be understood in physical terms when you consider the scientific phenomenon of "wave-particle duality of matter"!

The natural laws are not desinged to be broken at will and it rarely happens BUT when natural laws are suspended, it is called MIRACLE! In other words, if Donkeys speak, A man survives 3 days in the belly of a fish etc it is not normal but if it happens, it just simply means something out of the ordinary happend. The fact that the Sun stood still is a figurative expression for the observation of the writer (the time seem to freeze) which was a true statement of what happened expressed as the sun stood still.

The bible never said that the earth is 6000 years old. What the bible said was that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The beginning is the beginning of Time (you will observe that there was no where God created the Waters: It was already present before God separated the water from the land). Some Bible scholars believe that the account of creation in Genesis was actually a RE-CREATION/RE-POPULATION of the earth. So, it is completely wrong to say the earth is 6000 years old.



The definition of Atheism is a GNOSTIC position. Atheists are too sure without any appropriate evidence that the spirit realm and God does not exist. If atheists affirm that God doesnt exist but berate thesists of having no eviddence, you may want to ask, what appropriate evidence do they have. The scientist takes no definite stance until it is backed up by scientific data which can be brought into the laboratory and repeated at will.

Please dont forget that there are "spiritual atheists"; their stance is a DEFIANCE of God and a dare for Him to do His worst.


OK


In other words, even science do not have a fool-proof answer for many things AND even when science has a position on a subject, the possition could be very wrong.
Is the earth the center of the universe? The truth is that no one knows! But is earth the most unique planet in the whole of the known universe? Probably YES! Why?
What is the probability that another planet like the earth could exist in the universe? Its in the realm of an impossibility! Even when you have a planet with identical elements and chemical compounds like the earth, can the same events that led to the creation of life occur on that planet?

Unfortunatly, some people have made science their "god": as far as they are concerned, science is infallible!



At time t=0 (point when the universe began to suddenly inflate/expand), non of the physical laws like gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear etc exist. Something/Someforce must have been responsible for the change of state of the universe. That force isn't any of the known laws operational in the present universe.

This is the place where theists place God as the "Uncreated Change-Maker"!

It is impossible for science to go back in time beyond time t=0!


Unfortunately the definition of LAWS in science differ from man made laws. In scientific laws matter operate/behave as if they follow a rule/law unlike humans who are compelled to obey a set of rules and consequences set as a deterrent to law breakers. In other words matter behave and exhibit certain measurable properties by default. When those default behaviour are unraveled, scientists call them LAWS. Hence, your proposition/postulate in bold is NOT correct.

Now scientifically, all laws are inherent properties of Energy and Matter. To be able to unravel the force behind the creation of the laws, you have to look at the laws behind the creation of Energy and Matter. Hence you are locked in a dilemma of "which came first: the chicken or the Egg!"
In other words, from Energy/Matter emanates the Physical Laws. Without Energy/Matter, no known physical law will exist. Do you think it is then possible to use the laws in existence to unravel the LAW that produced Energy/matter?

An argument could have been that Energy and Matter had always existed! Unfortunately the INFLATION theory/Big bang theory does not agree with it because it can be shown clearly that the universe has an ORIGIN. [Even if they had existed as a Singleton, what caused the singleton to suddenly change its state and start expanding/inflating?

I have been having issues with my phone and system, so couldn't post. Sorry about the unfortunate delay.

A lot of questions here, but i will summarize using your last question @bolded.
This is the type of question i actually like as it is direct and affects every other discussion we have been having.
At the point where one asks this question " what caused the singleton to suddenly change its state and start expanding/inflating?" which you asked, is supposed to be the point where the best answers should be:
1) Something or
2) I/We don't know yet.

If you go with the first answer that something caused the singleton to suddenly change its state and start expanding/inflating, why do you think/believe that that something is God? Why is the immediate answer that comes to your mind in replacing that something be with your religious God?
When you defer so forcibly to the notion that it must be God, that is the end of knowledge seeking for you. You stop seeking to know, to unravel because you have already predetermined the answer, and therefore can not go further... Self imposed limitation!!!
As i say, it comes mainly from religious indoctrination where every unanswered question is explained off with the God of the Gap theory.

With regards to the second answer of "I/We don't know," you will find that it leaves opportunity to find out more. Which is the path science often toes, and which is the difference between an indoctrinated religious individual and someone who is not indoctrinated with any religious views whatsoever.

From my interactions with you, it's obvious you are more than knowledgeable about law's of nature and the rest, but you are the one limiting how far you could go because you have decided to defer to the God of the Gap theory which is a logical fallacy.
You probably have the potential to discover how the universe actually began, but you are the one now limiting yourself by deferring to God of the Gap theory.
Who says the big bang theory cannot be disproved with a more sound logical explanation? Who says the big bang theory cannot be better understood in a different way to make things more uncomplicated?
So, unless you stop deferring to the God of the gap theory, you will always come to the end of knowledge seeking too fast with hasty conclusions that cannot survive simple scrutiny.

Maximus69:
How do you define "Indoctrination"?

To me, indoctrination means teaching people things, especially belief's without allowing what you are teaching them to be questioned or critically analysed.
In other words, even if what you are teaching is wrong, they should swallow it without questioning the truthfulness or otherwise of the teaching itself.

shadeyinka:
Heaven isn't space. It's not even a location in space. People point to the sky because it's that which surrounds and is beyond us.
The Creator gave us the power and intellect to master the universe and make the elements serve our purpose. Don't forget that science cannot create matter and life but science can deconstruct and reconstruct with what is already existing.

@bolded, really? Because I clearly remember the bible referring to it as heavenly bodies.
You could say what you opined in the bolded now because science and technology has made it possible for you to know... Those that wrote the Bible couldn't have known this because they lacked the knowledge, ability and capacity to know that a lot of solar systems lie just above the earth.
I mean, if they saw a meteorite hurtling down to earth like we do observe now, they will find one superstition or the other to explain it off.
So, respectfully, the bible nor any other religious book never understood the power of intellect nor the ability to make the elements serve our purpose.
If the bible did understand intellect, it wouldn't say that donkeys speak human or that horses fly or that a person can stay three day's in the belly of a fish or that the earth is 5000yrs old or that the earth is the centre of the universe or that a certain prophet raised their hand and the sun stood still. This is only things Ignorant superstitious people tell from generation to generation in folktales to pass time...
Surely, if God as you said gave us the power and intellect to master the elements to serve our purpose, the bible is supposed to be filled with such stories of people doing exactly as their lord commanded them.
The stories of Jesus for example, would have been stories of Inventions and discoveries not impossible thing's like performing miracles, raising the dead and walking on sea... It's like the popular Pastor Chris Oyakilome and T.B Joshua fake miracle parading TV shows which they pass off to their gullible followers as real...

The definition of atheism by atheists make it impossible for them to take any other position except their choice of gnosticism.

No, their definition of atheism makes it possible for them not to take any religion seriously. Seems like you're probably not understanding what atheism is.
Church of Satan for instance is an atheist way of mocking the catholic church and their idolatrous worship. All church of Satan exists to do is to mock and nothing more because atheists do not believe in religious god's and demons and angels and what have you.
But, ignorant people go about thinking it is actually the church of Satan where Satan is worshipped because in their respective religions, Satan is a central figure, their God's arch-enemy.

Of course, I am.

Just had to confirm. I already knew!!!

Science has shown us enough evidence to show that
1. the universe has a beginning
2. the universe started as a singleton/singularity.
3. Every known physical laws has its origin AFTER the expansion of the universe

What science has so far shown is a likely proposition that the universe as we know it today likely started out in a bang, and that the universe has continued to expand.
Every other thing is simply deduction and induction seeing as science doesn't know when exactly or where exactly or how exactly the universe started.
Science chose the big bang theory because it is the likeliest possibility using simulations as our brains can conceptualise in this very moment.
Some theories have been proved to be wrong over time, while others have been modified or repealed entirely.

Therefore another sets of laws other than the known laws set in motion the expansion of the universe
Using laws that has an origin well after the initiation of the expansion of the universe to unravel the laws that created it is logically impossible.

I honestly don't understand this. Care to explain more?

Have you thought about the impossibility of using a wrong tool (present laws of nature) to unravel the laws which created this new nature?
Eg.
How would you use gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear , gravitational forces etc to unravel the forces that created these same forces? Do you think it is possible?

I am a lawyer.
Let me tell you something about Laws since it's my area of speciality.
The Criminal Code Laws of the various States in Nigeria has offences which when you commit them, you have breached the peace and are liable to be prosecuted for it when caught.
E.g a section of the law may state that if you steal, upon conviction, you will be sentenced to 27yrs imprisonment depending on if it was armed robbery or just theft( stealing with no arms of any kind). Now, that's the law.
In this instance, what the law envisages are likely outcomes to follow once you do something ( commit a crime). The law doesn't know how you are going to orchestrate/execute your plan, but it knows that once caught, the punishment is certain no matter how the act was done.

Now, to relate it to your questions, I will tell you also that yes, it is logically possible to use the law's of gravity, electromagnetic, nuclear and gravitational forces to unravel the law's that govern them. In fact, it is the only way of unraveling them.
It is by understanding this law's of gravity for instance that aircrafts, space orbitals and space station have been created and sent outside of our own gravitational forces on earth.
How else are you going to unravel something if not by understanding how it works?

The law's of nature are static per se. 2 Hydrogen + Oxygen = Water.
As with the criminal code law example i gave, the law's of nature are such that if the right elements are in place, it will always give you the same outcome.
This is why instead of relying on chance, Law's of physics, Biological and Chemical Law's exist. Which is why a crackhead can cook meth so long as they follow the meth cooking procedure laid down for it.
So in conclusion, there is no way to unravel this law's you are referring to without using their own governing Law's because this law's governing them are the sum total of the phenomenon in description itself.

izzou:


[color=royalblue]What kind of impossible task is that?

10 bags of rice
10 bags of millet
10 bags of maize to be shared to 274 wards?

The man actually doesn't want to die of stress. Na one milk cup each person go receive na

Modified: The councillor disappeared with the one for his ward, not for all the wards[/color]

Is that what you read there?
Read kwanu, read.
Funny enough, people liked your post, which was a misinformation on every level!

shadeyinka:
Sorry for the ban. Nairalands spam bots misbehave at times.

Thanks.

In summary is saying (if I understand you well) : that science does NOT yet have an answer to the question of the origin of the Universe BUT work is still ongoing to unravel the mystery behind the universe.

@bolded, semantics bro, semantics.
Science does not have ALL the answers yet.
But surely, science do have some of the answers about our universe.
I mean if not for science and technology, people will still be pointing to the sky and calling it heaven when we all know what is the above the sky is space and other planetary bodies.

Unfortunately, science isn't atheism!
It may be reasonable as a scientist to take such a position BUT it is illogical for an atheist to take such position.

What position is illogical for an atheist to take?

Atheism comes from a gnostic position (the universe doesn't have an extraterrestrial source)
Theism also comes from a gnostic position (the universe has an extraterrestrial source)
Science has NO position except that arrived at from physical evidence (which for now doesn't exist)

Now except you disagree, let me answer the question for you.

1. Is there a logical or scientific defence for the universe coming out of existence from nothing?
NO!
It doesn't exist.

Are you a christian?

2. Do you expect a physical evidence from non-physical Extraterrestrial beings who theists say created the universe?
No!
Scientifically or logically impossible!

Why is it scientifically and logically impossible?

I ask this because the universe is a physical place, and the non-physical things within our environment we have derived instruments to see/observe them. (Microscope, Telescope... Also check the Hubble Telescope or the Telescope centre in China.)
Do you know about all the probes into our universe that has been going in the scientific community? (Please research on outer space probes from NASA, China, Russia, Elon Musk, etc.
A blackhole was recently observed in the science community, one of the wonder's of the 21st century when you count how far away in light years it was.
How do you think scientists have been getting information about the universe?

3. If your instrument cannot detect a signal, it that a positive and conclusive indication that the subject of measurement doesn't exist?
No!
There must be a suitable instrument for any particular subject. It's impossible to use for instance an instrument for measuring mass to measure light wavelengths

This is correct.
Also, that one cannot get conclusive indication also means that the right instrument for the task have not been discovered/built yet.

Do you have an objection to these three questions and answers?
But the answers betray the basic flaws and claims of atheism

I have raised my objections.