A quick 3mins-ish video on the mind/process of Bible researcher
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Vd74_qekk

I'll also encourage anyone to checkout the other videos on their channel https://www.youtube.com/c/TheBibleProject.
This guys have been able to breakdown generations of biblical scholarly work into short interesting videos that's actually not boring and very informative at the same time (a very hard feat to achieve if I may add).

Nuel4:
oh my goodness. So I have talking this thing all these while. God!!

That was actually a stupid thing to do and comment to make.... Its good you took it down

akpunda86:


Yea she wont but ill get the baby outside..im a catholic but will be porting to anglican nxt year as take a new wife.is allowed.

Oga taking a new wife when still legally married is not allowed in Anglican communion. Matter of fact no orthodox church, whether it is Catholic Anglican Protestant Pentecostal etc allows it. Any priest or pastor who officiates such a wedding knowing fully well is running his own personal show without the official sanction of the denomination.

BOSSkesh:

Is speaking behfehjwjagshyrhbakiehiekwbsvv bsysgsbsisijekJsbysvsbsksu bshsjsnbssvjaiwhevjajsbsnjsjwnnejejvcevevvwbeh.hshvajkaheghehbrbhwiytwgejdjbsvvsb svsyqknqgwqgvw whehebeh speaking in tongues?? Does This sound meaningful to anyone

If it sounded meaningful, there won't have been need for gift of interpretation and if there's none, the speaker should speak quietly to himself and to God

OP, I understand what you are trying to get at, especially with the excesses that we as a body are prone too but to narrowly interpret the meaning of tongues as intelligible speech used to propagate the Gospel as described in Acts 2 is to cut out the rest of the New Testament. The thing is you'll likely run into problems with that way of interpreting the text in places like Acts19, 1 Corinthians 14, Acts 10 etc.
The thing about Acts 2 is, there's alot of one-of-a-kind Old testament motifs going on in it. Motifs like God's first introduction to Isreal at Sinai(exodus 19:16-18), God's presence after the completion of the tarbancle (Exodus 40:34-38) and the dedication of temple (2 chronicles 7:1), the tower of Babel and the disinheritance of the nations(Genesis 11:1-9,Deut 32:8-9), God fulfilling His promise that through Abraham's seed, all the nations would be blessed etc are all rolled up into the few passages. Basically there's a unique and specific theological messaging going on in Acts 2 (the institution of the new temple and the gathering of the nations back, in broad terms) that narrowing the meaning of the gift of tongues using just it, will obscure its range of usage.

But as I mentioned earlier, I do understand where you are coming from and taking a page from the scriptures, speaking or praying in tongues in corporate gathering doesn't help much(1 Corinthians 14:13-19) since it does more for the speaker than the hearers. But taking the scripture as a whole, outside of Acts 2, tongues is used as a form of unintelligible speech to the speaker or hearer(if there's no accompanying gift of interpretation present) mainly spoken as a form of prayer or praise to God.

Like the post above mine says, it appears there are still sins that you are holding onto and are not willing to let God come into those aspects of your life. Our body is the temple of God not any special building. Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6:18-19
"Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,"

It really doesn't really matter whether you go to a church or not ,as long as you realise your body is the real temple and not any external building, then whatever you commit to your body is the same as defiling God's space. Sexual sins are one of the few sins the new testament constantly hammered on becauseos it's really that serious.

With that being said, I empathize with you brother, sex is a very strong urge and most of us struggle with it at some point. This is where God's grace and Christ's love comes in, Like Paul writing again in 2 Corinthians 12:9a
But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” (Christ speaking here).
The thing is, you have to be truly willing to let God to come into this part of your life and you have to be truly willing to change. At this point, the HolySpirit begins to work through you and in you. It might be instantaneous or it might be a legit struggle of falling and getting back up, it doesn't matter, the major thing is to truly let God in and lean on his grace.

As for why we go to church... Well that's our community and our family. We go to worship as a family,to learn and to be part be part of a community of Jesus followers that help each other run the Christain race. The Christain race is a marathon not a sprint so we all need one another to lean on and encourage.
Basically the church is a worship based, educational, egalitarian, philanthropic, fictive group. Whatever you can think of as the role of a true family, thats what the church (community of Jesus followers) is meant to be. Like the writer of Hebrews wrote
"and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near. Hebrews 10:24‭-‬25 NASB"
So it's not really a good idea to stay away from being part of the community. Salvation is personal, but the race was not designed to be run alone.

And as for the people you talked about... Everyone has what they are struggling with and that's part of the need for the family, to encourage eachother and stimulating eachother to good deeds like Hebrews 10 above. There are real life consequences for sin no doubt but there is no damnation for those who abide in Christ Jesus. People who are not sick don't need a doctor, people who are saints don't need Jesus.
Maybe it's you who God will end up using to encourage your Facebook sister to become better and stand more firmly... Who knows

Usually when a major event shocks the world like the rise of the 3rd Reich and the second world war or the current Covid-19 pandemic, we usually try and find meaning and solace in apocalyptic literatures like parts of the book of Daniel, the book of Revelation, parts of Ezekiel etc (popularly known as end time scriptures).
Problem is, these books are usually misunderstood and misinterpreted because of the heavy symbolisms and language used in them which are unfamiliar to us. Below is a very short and interactive video on how to read these types of literature more accurately.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNDX4tUdj1Y

Its a pretty good introductory video for most people.
For anyone who wants to take a deeper dive into how to read these books better (especially for those in pastoral ministry), there are some really good resources out there that can help.
I.e https://www.logos.com/guides/commentaries/best-commentaries-revelation and a host of others.

Hope this helps.

MuttleyLaff:
On the contrary, it is driven by your your "id" and not your "ego" your "super-ego"

Be my guest. Wallow in ignorance, this is the prize you get because of your "id"

It is well

The whole stuff about Constantine and co could be easily fact checked that he instituted Christmas to align with the state's historical pagan festival tradition. You dont want to accept that the early Christian theologians didnt have the clout to make legislation, enforce and compel this practice as state policy.

As I have advanced, Constantine merged two traditions from the Roman festival, the December 17-25 week long pagan feast, called the Saturnalia and the birth of Mithras, the Persian god of light festival, with the nativity story in the Bible and the rest is history, on how Christmas was officially born

All I said was that, in the real sense of the word, it was Constantine who commissioned, the building of the Church of the nativity on a spot in Bethlehem assumed to be the exact birthplace of Christ. It was not any of the the early Christian theologians. I even volunteered a resource, I advised you to go check out, which again reproduced, the below excerpt, on who then, first made Christmas official and declared December 25th a civic holiday, lol.

"While there is one record of Christmas being celebrated in Antioch (Turkey) on December 25 in the middle of the second century, there is no record of its being observed on that date in Rome until the year 336 AD. In 350 AD Pope Julius I declared December 25 the official date and in 529 AD Emperor Justinian declared Christmas a civic holiday. Further legislation by the Council of Tours in 567 AD officially made Advent a period of fasting and preparation; the time from Christmas to Epiphany (the twelve days of Christmas) was also declared part of the festive season"
Excerpt from:
https://www.lnstar.com/mall/main-areas/xmas-not-first-choice.htm

And You just proved my point. Your resource is some blog by some people called globalbusinesscafe/lone star where there's no information on who they are, where they are getting their information from or atleast if they are qualified to be their own source or even anything remotely close to anything really.
This is exactly what I was saying in my previous post.

Just to quickly clarify it. Look at the dates written in your exerts, the earliest is 336AD and like I told you before,
the first day 336AD was not an official declaration. It comes from an old list of the death days of christian bishops with the first entry being
December 25: natus Christus in Betleem Judeae: “Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea
It doesn't tell us there was any state celebration on that day, it was just an official list of bishops death days. You can go check it out.
The next one is 350AD, Constantine died in 337AD...The others are in the 500's AD so there's no point even talking about them.
Like I said before, The earliest document to suggest that Christianity intentionally changed a pagan feast day to that of the birth of Christ comes from the 12th century (Syriac biblical commentator Dionysius bar-Salibi). He wrote that Christians moved to day of Christ's birth back from January 6 to December 25th to coincide with the sol Invictus holiday and for some reason later biblical scholars ran with it and it later became popularized in the media. But more modern scholarships has shown that not to be true.
This again, you can check it up.
Anyway,it's fine. At this point, too much energy has been exerted on a very trivial matter.

Will you please desist from opening and picking up healed wounds

What are you talking about here again? Which old wound are you talking about?

Stop dwelling on it. Let it go. I have

I don't even know what you are talking about ,talkless of dwelling on it...

Likeness and image is the intention of the Godhead to make man like. Aside Genesis 1:26-27, for starters, go read up Genesis 5:1&3, in order, to get a proper handle and clearer perspective of what was unfolding

Sigh... There's just so much you don't but somehow you don't realise that whatever you think you know now is always going to be a fraction of what is to be known.
It's not a jab,it's something even people who are well respected in the field ascribe to.

Well man to man, I'm a bit disappointed with the things that have transpired these past couple of days. There's much to be said but being a public forum, its best to leave them unsaid.

In any case, it's all good. No harm no foul

MuttleyLaff:
Its not simply and just okay, but the summation that "Conception, fertilisation, impregnation et cetera is different to delivery, childbirth et cetera." is incontrovertible fact

Like I said previously, the conversation is been driven by ego than anything else and at which point there's really no reason to continue.

You dont know what you're talking about. Go check my timeline, to see that I have just returned from a brief hiatus

So you dont know what "id", "ego" and "super-ego" are, yet you recklessly was throwing about the term "ego"

I'm just going to ignore this part.

Never mind, it must be something trivia, I observed and misconstrued it to be resentment and/or unconscious bias (i.e. the thread, Religion / Re: I'm Beginning To Reason With Jehovah Witness On Their Stand Concerning Trinity et cetera)

Bro, Are you serious right now? This was the only conversation we had on that thread

MuttleyLaff:
jamesid29 hey, long time no see around.

Baba Ravi Zacharias RIP, nailed the concept of trinity on its head.

Fact is, God can't be boxed. I love the multi-dimensional illustration Baba used and so why I stamped my like on that post.

jamesid29:

Hey boss, yea it's been a minute. Hope you are good

Where is the seething and scheming here? How did you misconstrue this?
Were you expecting something special or something? You know that's not how this works.

I didnt want you receiving any notification and so why I used jamesid\29 instead of jamesid29

I don't comment much on nairaland so I don't know most of this tricks. So Imagine my surprise seeing a convo that I thought was honest and ended on a good note. The whole stuff about Constantine and co could be easily fact checked and I just assumed you did that.

Things like these are not big deals. On the faith thread (https://www.nairaland.com/5997053/what-faith-really/4#92042066) where I gave the man props for his exposition on Hebrew 11:1, I didn't just give him props because what he said sounded good to my hears. I actually went to check out his usage of hypostasis in classical Greek and it held up, hence my giving him props for taking a interesting approach in interpreting the text. It gave me something interesting to ponder on and it ended up raising other questions(great thing about the Bible...you strike one down, other questions pop up) but I didn't think we needed to get into it those questions at the time since it was going to take us down a rabbit hole.
I just assumed you did that in the December 25th stuff thread and I moved on.
There's so much wrong information on the world today that it's good to have good & solid information out there also especially in the matters of faith, cos you never know the kind of burden you are putting on another person or how a particular kind of information affects other people.
These things are not just about winning arguments, it literally life and death on the line for some people (I mean salvation here). To show you how misinformation can take a life of its own, today we have people who believe the Pauline Letters are forgeries by the Catholic church because one blog said so, effectively cutting themselves of from major doctrines. Even a fiction book(not even something that claims to be historical)" the davinci code" rocked alot of people's faith. This things are trivial but it really does affect people, so we have to be careful of the information we put out there, especially the ones we have the option to check how factual they are, because it's one thing to share information that we think is true even if they are not bit it's another thing to keep sharing them when someone else calls them into question. Again these things does affect real people.

Yeah,It's easy to say people are lazy for not digging these informations themselves but the reality is we all have different gifts. I might be able to break down the rape laws in Bible and put them in historical and cultural context as the HolySpirit helps me but actually being able to console someone who was really raped is something I won't be of much help.it would be hard for know the right words to use. Someone else who knows zilch about ancient cultures or what not might have the gift to help that person a whole lot better than I can.
So the best way I can help is to make sure to the best of my ability, I get accurate information across to people with other gifts, so they can in turn do what they are good at better. Thats the way I see things.

I did not take anything you wrote personally, it was merely a case of, I observed a developed pattern, worth mentioning

I'm still lost on this one?

I am equipped to when appropriate and led, to give as good, as I get.

You have to be careful with that one... You don't want to win a couple of battles but loose the war. You have to constantly ask yourself, what's the cost?

"²⁶Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness,
to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock,
and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.
²⁷So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them"
- Genesis 1:26-27

I like red, as the colour, exudes an air of love, romance, boldness, courage, danger etcetera to me. We, human beings, are the image representation of different attributes of God. God is incorporeal, but created, human beings to physically project different aspect, images and likeness of the Godhead.

Image is instant, while likeness is continuum. The latter, is evident in Genesis 1:27, as seen above. Notice that the mention of "likeness" is left unsaid, in Genesis 1:27. Why? its because its continuum. Now, it is unfortunate that, ever since God took the adventure to create man in His image and likeness, man retrospectively has had the desire to want to return the favour and wilfully contravene "The Second Commandment" (i.e. Exodus 20:4- You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth) by creating God in his image, according to an atypical representation, formulation, theory, perverted idea, and classic misrepresentation of God

God is, incorporeal, hence has no clear definite shape or size, but Jesus Christ, is the product of God, projecting Himself out, as a human being in the person of Jesus Christ on earth. Jesus Christ is the visible image of the invisible God (i.e. 2 Corinthians 4:4b - Christ, who is the image of God and Philippians 2:6-7 - ⁶Though he was God, He did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.⁷Instead, He gave up his divine privileges; He took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When He appeared in human form. Or, Colossians 1:15 - Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation)

Fair enough. Though, The image of God concept and what it truly means to be human is a much deeper conversation than that. Maybe some other time we can go back and forth on it.

You jump to conclusions. I never said you abhorred me or have ill feelings towards me. I inferred that I observed a developed pattern

Mr MuttleyLaff, you said I was seething and scheming to get you. It doesn't get more ill feelings than that.

I have already shown my hands, laid my cards on the table, facing up with Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:18, Luke 2:8-15 and summarising with "Conception, fertilisation, impregnation et cetera is different to delivery, childbirth et cetera." I am more than happy to share with you sources of information, that expatiate on the conception and birth of Yahshua Ha Mashiach, aka Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour of the whole wide worldhood.

You seem to be more interested in winning an argument than admitting you were wrong. You and I both know this is not what the conversation was about...it's best to drop the conversation at this point.

MuttleyLaff:
Mister jamesid29, you should expect me to not shy from saying it as it is.

The discourse is in public domain, its not classified, that no one havent got access to to check the contents of the discourse between us. Please you are old enough and way past, not to be playing the tantrum and/or victim card(s) here

jamesid29, you seem to forget you were wavering on that thread. You were undecided between at least two to three different opinions.

The thread is alive and visible, nobody has misrepresented nor distorted the conversation. Yes, I have presented excerpts from the original conversation, but I certainly havent changed anything you wrote. I am not sure where your idea of "muddy the waters" comes from, when the crux of your argument was based on patristic sentiments with you gravitating towards them, so why I typed that, what you dont seem to understand, is that, the proponents of December 25th, promoters like your darlings, Bishop Hippolytus and Julius Sextus Africanus, (i.e. the early Christian theologians circa era of the first five centuries) leaning on Jewish tradition, are pinning the birthday of Yahshua Ha Mashiach, aka Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour of the whole wide world, on the time of His conception, which falls on December 25th. I, then added that, if you don't concur with this, you then can be my guest, do the math and to have a "satori"

"The angel replied,
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
So the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God."
- Luke 1:35

"This is how Jesus the Messiah was born.
His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph.
But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin,
she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit"
- Matthew 1:18

"⁸That night there were shepherds staying in the fields nearby, guarding their flocks of sheep.
⁹Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared among them, and the radiance of the Lord’s glory surrounded them. They were terrified,
¹⁰but the angel reassured them. “Don’t be afraid!” he said. “I bring you good news that will bring great joy to all people.
¹¹The Savior—yes, the Messiah, the Lord—has been born today in Bethlehem, the city of David!
¹²And you will recognize him by this sign: You will find a baby wrapped snugly in strips of cloth, lying in a manger.”
¹³Suddenly, the angel was joined by a vast host of others—the armies of heaven—praising God and saying,
¹⁴“Glory to God in highest heaven,
and peace on earth to those with whom God is pleased.”
¹⁵When the angels had returned to heaven, the shepherds said to each other, “Let’s go to Bethlehem! Let’s see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”"
- Luke 2:8-15

If this sentiment, consoles you and makes you feel better, then so be it and be my guest, the fact remains that you are mixing up gestation (i.e. Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18) period, with time of birth (i.e. Luke 2:11). They are chalk and cheese, salt and sugar, look alike, but aren't the same thing.

Conception, fertilisation, impregnation et cetera is different to delivery, childbirth et cetera.

Okay

Mister jamesid29, ego and super ego, are good, it is "id" you need to be wary of, the sort you had displayed, ever since you ambushed me on that thread and since then after, you have been commenting on my posts grudgingly. I knew you were seething, so I have coyly been withholding responding to you jumping on my posts to comment. "Id" obviously and not ego or super ego,, reigned supreme in your case

I can biblically hold my ground with my original position of circa September/October, can the same be said of you?. Are you capable and able to use scripture to back up your position and do so, without being tentative. You can't straddle the fence

Seriously bro don't take this the wrong way but you need to take a break from nairaland and rejuvenate. If it's gotten to the point where you believe people thousands of miles away are seething and plotting against you and you've been making up plans and strategies against them in your heart, I think it's a good time to take a step back and rejuvenate.

As in, which ambush,what thread, what are you talking about? Mehnnnn..... I wish you could literally see my face right now.
What is "Id"? Who's been commenting on your post grudgingly? As I can recall, ever since I've been back on nairaland, it's you who mostly mentions me and I either reply or like accordingly. Matter of fact I'm only on this thread because you posted a conversation with my username in it and I responded to that...other than that I wouldn't have been on this thread in the first place(I tend not to dabble in all the black Hebrew stuff).
Other than that, anybody that post something interesting to me, I drop my comments and move. Funny enough, I mostly try not to be confrontational because from experience, once ego kicks in on either or both sides, reason goes out the window and the whole point having a conversation is defeated. But alas I'm human and sometimes I get ticked off or plainly not in the mood and I can get confrontational with my comments....
Maybe it's one of those you took personally and have ever since been parsing anything I post through that lens.

Mehnnnn??seriously though, taking breaks from places like this is usually good. That's what I do personally and even planning to do so soon. It's hard to be in a place like nairaland or twitter where people under the cloak of anonymity feel confident showcasing the worst tendencies of the human heart and not change gradually. It's very hard seeing the raw tendencies of the human heart and not begin to respond accordingly no matter how little. Sure some people have the anointing for being in a place like this for long periods and not to change and I'm happy for them but far more of us don't have such an anointing.
For example, I've never had a tribalistic bone in my body. Went to a multicultural secondary school, spent my young adulthood in a place where noone cares if you are Igbo,yoruba, zulu or Ghanaian, you are all blacks and we all stuck together. Imagine my surprise when nairaland and Twitter started showing how much hatred people of different tribes harbour in their hearts for eachother. If not for deep rooted experiences from my younger days that when push comes to shove, tribe doesn't matter, I'll also have been developing sinister thoughts towards other tribes no matter how little. Even at that, Im still always very cautious of what I allow get to me, hence periodically taken step backs.
Places like this train us to see the worst in people and we respond accordingly because we expect the worst from them. And you know the old saying, whatever you call Harry, Harry eventually becomes. So in the end, we end up with a feedback loop of hatred and so on.
For all the good platforms like this can do, that's just one of the dark sides.
That's just some humble thoughts from one human to another. No sinister motives in it.

On the flip side, This is good.... atleast everything can be laid out in the open and trashed accordingly. Regardless of what you think of me and our differences (we would probably have a lot) , we are still brothers in Christ.
Yeah, sure we will have some good conversations and sometimes we would have some confrontational ones. That's just part of the human experience. Paul and Peter, Paul and Barnabas, the early church fathers etc had their moments but that doesn't change their oneness in Christ.
Even if you're not a Christain, that doesn't change anything because we are all human and are all images of God and deserve the same love and respect.
(Fun fact: image of God is another interesting rabbit trail. Mehnnnn, the Bible bro. I spent a huge chunk of last year and now this year recurringly on parsing just Gen: 1&2 and there's just still alot to get through. As in, this are the types of conversations you have for hours with people going back and forth, reefing of eachother, going back back home, parsing things out and coming back another day to continue with the conversation. But sadly nairaland is not built for such conversations, so what can we do, we stuck with having to give simplistic answers to really complex questions... but the Bible mehn. Sometimes I just wish more people could see these things or pick interest in it. Interesting that you mentioned Dr Heiser, He's one of my go-to people on ancient new eastern culture, so we have that in common.... I've digressed to much)

In conclusion my brother, I abhour no I'll feelings towards you. I do not claim I am above abhouring such feelings against another human being but like I stated above, I'll much rather leave the space before it gets to that point.
Yes, in a small community like this religion forum, there will always be possibility of locking horns on certain threads with you or with some other person but for it to escalate to deep seated animosity, I'll rather leave. It's a constant prayer on my part both online and offline, because I know from experience that hate is alot easier to come by than love.

So Mr MuttleyLaff, I have no deep seated animosity against you but please if you still have anything you feel we need to trash out, feel free to bring it and we can trash it out together(so that when next I tackle you, you go know say no be targeted tackling, na just that thread cos am, lol). But on a more serious note though, if we need to trash out some things, I'm all ears and I am not above saying sorry, if the need arises.

MuttleyLaff:

---

---

---

You are a funny character sha Mr jamesid29, not only have you not laid in wait and ambush me more than on one occasion, but you seem to be seething and this has led to your latest point of accusing me of guilt tripping others, with you expecting me to lie down, roll over and take the allegation, just like that, without so much of seeing your proof(s). Smh

Why dont you go back to re-read my first post on that thread to see whether my motive was to create a guilt-trip for anyone in particular. Now, fyi, I stand by my original submission, that from deductive reasoning, using the bible and other resources, God incarnate, Yahshua Ha Mashiach, aka Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour of the whole wide world, was born circa the month of September/October.

Now what you dont seem to understand is that, the proponents of December 25th, promoters like your darlings, Bishop Hippolytus and Julius Sextus Africanus, leaning on Jewish tradition, are pinning the birthday of Yahshua Ha Mashiach, aka Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour of the whole wide world, on the time of His conception, which falls on December 25th. If you don't concur with this, then be my guest, do the math and have a "satori"

I have better games, I would love to play but your suggested, nondescript playing cat and mouse, isn't one of them. Sorry.

Brother, you say, "the conversation was about whether the 25th date itself was derived from pagan origins or independent of it and also on if Constantine was responsible for choosing the date(which is historically incorrect)" but the truth and fact of the matter is that, Constantine instituted and officially established that day and he selected the December 25th date, done in homage to pagan festival of Saturnalia (i.e. the ancient Roman festival of Saturn in December for indulging in wild revelry and reckless indulgences)

For some reason I didn't expect all this from you.
You found every possible way to misrepresent or distort our conversation. Even going as far as positing what I originally wrote on the other thread in a bid to muddy the waters again.

jamesid29:
Actually that's not really factual and it's one of those misconception about Constantine's influence on Christianity that has been around for so long, that most people just tend to believe it's true. I believe it's right up there with "Constantine choosing the Christian Canon and him making Jesus God".
In reality the proposal of December 25th as the birthday of Jesus predates Constantine or any pagan influence. The earliest allusion to 25th comes from Bishop Hippolytus sometime around 202 ad
"The first coming of our Lord, that in the flesh, in which he was born at Bethlehem, took place eight days before the Kalends of January, a Wednesday, in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus, 5500 years from Adam.”
This translates to December 25th, 2 BC. Also Julius Sextus Africanus came up with the same date around the same time. This is basically over a hundred years before Constantine and decades before Aurelian .

December 25th was not the only date that was proposed by the early church as Clement of Alexandria writes around 200 ad that different groups also proposed different dates
“There are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord’s birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the 28th year of Augustus, and in the 25th day of Pachon [May 20 ] … And treating of His Passion, with very great accuracy, some say that it took place in the 16th year of Tiberius, on the 25th of Phamenoth [March 21]; and others on the 25th of Pharmuthi [April 21] and others say that on the 19th of Pharmuthi [April 15] the Savior suffered. Further, others say that He was born on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi [April 20 or 21].”
So for the first 200 yrs of Christianity, the church was silent on the birthday of Christ but apparently by the late 2nd century and early 3rd century there was an interest in pin pointing the date but this interest had nothing to do with pagan influence. It's worth noting that Christians during this period were still a persecuted minority group within the Roman empire,and they did their best to separate themselves from pagan practices and celebrations.
By the early 4th century before the conversion of Constantine, 2 dates were the leading ones, 25th of December and 6th of January( Mainly in the East) even though there was no official festivity associated with them.

There are a couple of leading theories of how these 2 dates were calculated as the Bible doesn't give much information but the most widely accepted one is:

Integral age: this concept has it's roots in Judaism. The basic idea is, all prophets of God enter and exit the world on the same day (Basically conception and death fall on the same day). So when the western church calculated the death of Christ as falling on the 25th of March (14th day of Nisan) it also meant he was conceived on the 25th of March. Add nine months to that and you get 25th of December as the day of birth.
The Eastern church calculation of the crucifixion fell on the 14th day of Artemisios on the Greek calendar which is April 6th. Add nine months and you get January 6.

There are other ways the dates were calculated devoid of pagan influence like the equinox and creation day theories attested to by church fathers writing.

As for the elephant in the room, theres no doubt that we can find pagan influences in the present day celebration of Christmas but this influences come mainly from the later centuries(the 6th century and beyond) as Christianity expanded into western and northern Europe. At this point the church didn't have much of a problem in borrowing from pagan practices and religions. But the date itself is not pagan in origin.

The earliest document to suggest that Christianity intentionally changed a pagan feast day to that of the birth of Christ comes from the 12th century (Syriac biblical commentator Dionysius bar-Salibi). He wrote that Christians moved to day of Christ's birth back from January 6 to December 25th to coincide with the sol Invictus holiday and for some reason later biblical scholars ran with it and it later became popularized in the media. But more modern scholarships has shown that not to be true.

I guess you checked it out and it held up.

Anyway, it's fine. It seems this is more of an ego thing than anything else.

MuttleyLaff:
What of, where and how I have guilt tripped?

Sigh...You really are intentionally grasping at every other thing of less importance rather than the facing the main crust of the conversation... it's gotten tiring. We are both too old to be playing cat and mouse.

MuttleyLaff:
Its MuttleyLaff and not Mr Mutt and also please show where or how I guilt trip anyone. Smh.

Okay sir.

MuttleyLaff:
Its a pity and weirder that you've allowed "id" get the better of you. If you read the bible well and good enough, you'll get the insight that Jesus was born circa the month of September/October. Now again, I repeat that considerable time has passed enough for you to brush up on any truth decay by now. You were tentative as can be seen from the immediate two mention of you extracts reproduced above, you even said something to the effect that "you can live with my submission", so if you now are certain, I've Kindly asked you to then revisit the thread so we roll on from last rendezvous, where I'll show you from deductive reasoning using the bible how Jesus was born circa the month of September/October

Mr Mutt. I can see you are determined to misrepresent the whole conversation and only present the part you know we both largely agree on while intentionally leaving out the crust of the conversation which was always

jamesid29:
As you can see from what I wrote, the conversation was not about the most likely birth month of Christ based on current assumptions we make today....the conversation was about whether the 25th date itself was derived from pagan origins or independent of it and also on if Constantine was responsible for choosing the date(which is historically incorrect).

.

Maybe you should start reading from where we started and work your way down incase you want to recall what the conversation was about. (Our entire convo was 3 posts in total so it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes).
https://www.nairaland.com/5602350/where-it-bible#85329096

Or at the very least read the entire statement I made when I briefly touched on the September dating

To your remarks about the September date as the birthday of Christ... I know of it also and I know it's the best bet calculations we have as of today but with a gun to my head, I wouldn't lay my down my life on the certainty of September as the birthday of Christ and I don't know of any body (most of whom accept the September dating) who would stake their careers on saying definitively that September is the exact month Christ was born( the answer is usually " most likely" ).
The problem is with such little information given in the scriptures and very little extra biblical account of his birth written in reliable sources, we are mostly forced to make assumptions in our calculations that can't be proven. It's like accurately calculating the creation date or when exactly the flood of noahs time happened down to the day and month. There's such little information available that it's like trying to pull water from a rock.

For me I like to play such datings safe hence my goto answer being "it's unclear"... but if someone is persistent and just wants a best guess date, I'll say the most likely dating is September with the information we have today but I will still butress my statement with "that's the best answer we have with the assumptions we make currently"
But If you sir are convinced totally with the September dating, that's also fine as either way doesn't touch on the tenets of faith or doctrine.

Again this was not the bone of contention... How the date itself was arrived at and if it had its origins with Constantine or paganism was the bone of contention.

And trying to use the part I edited out about how modern people ascribe so many things to Constantine which are not factual (so we don't derail the conversation into another rabbit hole), to seem like I changed my mind and added things to the conversation after the fact when you know that is not true is something I quite frankly didn't expect from you.... but it's all good.

Like I said earlier,it is well... Atleast you guys should stop guilt tripping others with informations that are not historical and factual especially for things that don't add or remove from the major tenets of the faith.

MuttleyLaff:

Its weirder you allowed id get the better of you. If you read the bible well and good enough, you'll get the insight He was born circa the month of September/October.

jamesid29:
....For me I like to play such datings safe hence my go to answer being "it's unclear"... but if someone is persistent and just wants a best guess date, I'll say the most likely dating is September with the information we have today but I will still butress my statement with "that's the best answer we have with the assumptions we make currently"
But If you sir are convinced totally with the September dating, that's also fine as either way doesn't touch on the tenets of faith or doctrine.

As you can see from what I wrote, the conversation was not about the most likely birth month of Christ based on current assumptions we make today....the conversation was about whether the 25th date itself was derived from pagan origins or independent of it and also on if Constantine was responsible for choosing the date(which is historically incorrect).
It's quite telling though, that you ignored most of what was written by me and only pasted out a very minute part of the conversation.(effectively putting it in a different context and misrepresenting what was originally meant and discussed).

jamesid29:
Edited out. Realized that what I wrote here would take us down another path. Sorry about that.

Enjoy your holidays sir..

Considerable time has passed enough for you to brush up on any truth decay by now. You were tentative as can be seen from the above reproduced immediate two mention extracts, if you now are certain, kindly then revisit the thread so we roll on from last rendezvous

That post marked as edited out was a post on how we in the 21st century usually overestimates Constantine's influence on christainity. Constantine was influential no doubt but quite a number of things being ascribed to him today by blogs and al were either before him, after him or sometimes just plainly untrue.
It was edited out that same day because like I wrote above, it would take us down a different conversation and I didn't think that was necessary.

I'm pretty sure it was you who left the thread and I just assumed you went to check up on the historicity of the things that were presented.
The thread is still open for you to present your reply on what you think is incorrect...

MuttleyLaff:

---

---

---

I find it weird that even after correcting the historicity of your beliefs on the Christmas date and Constantine, you're still comfortable using it(though this time it seems it's for a good cause).

Anyway,it is well. I'll leave you guys to it then.

Tamaratonye5:

Pretty sure I did not, I merely pointed out there isn’t a shred of objective evidence for any creation myth. Any other assertion is of your own construct I'm afraid.

Below is your exact statement I quoted, exactly the way I quoted it and my exact question. The whole premise was for you to clarify your statement, which could have easily been answered with a, "this was what I was tracking when I made that statement"...but your reply was on a whole different tangent. I'm not sure why you trying to pitch your tent on something that is documented.

Tamaratonye5:
I can have no problem with deities or creation since I don't believe the universe was created, and I don’t believe in any extant deity.

james29:
Really not trying to derail the thread, just want you to quickly clarify the bolded. What do you mean by the universe wasn't created?

You can check back and read your reply and guage if it was a response to my question or a response to a question you made up.
https://www.nairaland.com/5997053/what-faith-really/2#91968803

That's why logic is necessary, it is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, in order to filter out bias and of course superstitions like religions.

Most Christians, like the ones here, don't
have a developed epistemology or dont even know zilch about their epistemology, so they come here thinking they know it all but don't realize how bad they actually embarrass themselves.

How many people on this thread care for the truth? If you are not willing to change if you discover truth is different than what you think it currently is, then you don't care for the truth.

It seems you missed the point I was making. Basically I pointing out the realities of human nature from behavioural science but again you seem to have sliced and misconstrued it for an avenue for a "stick it to the Christain" reply.

No that’s nonsense again, there are known logical fallacies, these are called common logical fallacies if they occur in informal logic. Theists use these type of fallacies all the time, as you have done above using straw man fallacies about atheism.

I pretty sure you can't point out any of my statement that is a straw man fallacy about atheism. You just made that up or assumed it. You're kinda making the point on my previous post though. You are not replying to what I wrote, rather you are replying to what you would have liked me to write.

Have you noticed that you constantly slice my statements up(sometimes pulling out statements in the middle of a sentence) so it can better fit in to your preconceived notion of "he's a Christain so this is what I want him to mean".

And I'm pretty sure, you've also noticed that you constantly sidestep main issues but latch onto things that you a feel gives you an excuse to rail against how stupid every one is asides you, even though that has never been the premise of our conversation.

There is no animosity here, I'm just here to learn. However I can't deny that it's been a shitfest thus far here. So far it's the same old same old. People assigning imaginary arguments to me, or committing strawmen by putting labels on me such as my being an evolutionist. In the midst of all the games the countless dishonest apologists present on this thread are hell bent on playing, absolutely zero, zilch, nada has been offered in terms of substance. None of them, not one, has succeeded in demonstrating objective evidence for any deity.

It's never been a subject of our conversation but Okay

You may want to give a comeback of your own and probably read a whole different meaning to my statements, that's fine... but from my own end, I'll leave it at this.

pauloskie38:
HOW would you define faith? Some equate it with blind belief. Influential American essayist and journalist H. L. Mencken once called faith “an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.”

The Bible, in contrast, describes faith as being neither blind nor illogical. God’s Word says: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.”​—Hebrews 11:1.

Given the different opinions about faith, let us consider the answers to the following questions:

• How is the Bible’s definition different from what many refer to when they talk about faith?

• Why is it vital that we develop the kind of faith that the Bible describes?

• How can you build strong faith?

A Title Deed and Solid Evidence

At the time of the writing of the Bible book of Hebrews, the Greek term translated “assured expectation” was commonly used. It often appeared in business documents and carried the idea of a guarantee of future possession of something. Therefore, one reference work suggests that Hebrews 11:1 could be translated: “Faith is the title-deed of things hoped for.”

If you have ever bought an item from a reputable company and then waited for it to be delivered, you have exercised that type of faith. The sales receipt in your hand gave you reason for faith in the company from which you bought the item. In a sense, that receipt was your title deed, your guarantee that you would receive what you purchased. If you had lost the receipt or had thrown it away, you would have lost the proof of your claim of ownership. Similarly, those who have faith that God will fulfill his promises are guaranteed to receive what they hope for. On the other hand, those who do not have faith, or who lose it, are not entitled to receive the things God promises.​—James 1:5-8.

The second expression at Hebrews 11:1, translated “evident demonstration,” carries the idea of producing evidence that contradicts that which only appears to be factual. For instance, the sun appears to revolve around the earth​—rising in the east, moving through the sky, and setting in the west. However, evidence from astronomy and mathematics reveals that the earth is not the center of the solar system. Once you become familiar with that evidence and accept it as true, you have faith that the earth revolves around the sun​—despite what your eyes tell you. Your faith is not blind. On the contrary, it gives you the ability to see things as they really are, not merely as they seem to be.

How Important Is Strong Faith?

This is the type of faith that the Bible encourages​—strong faith built on solid evidence, even if it requires that we adjust our beliefs. Such faith is vital. The apostle Paul wrote: “Without faith no one can please God. Anyone who comes to God must believe that he is real and that he rewards those who truly want to find him.”​—Hebrews 11:6, New Century Version.

There are many challenges to developing strong faith. But if you take the four steps discussed on the following pages, you can succeed.

Interesting breakdown. Never really taught of James 1 that way.
Well done sir

Tamaratonye5:

I don't mean anything by it, as I never did say the universe wasn't created. Your question was disingenuous.

You actually did,hence my question....But it's all good.

Really? Obviously I wasn't aware, or I would not have made such mistakes.

Well, I'll venture to say it's because you are human. Just to digress a bit: The truth is, We humans are really not rational... We all filter the world through personal bias, prejudices & worldview. Humans are capable of objective logical reasoning, that's why we can spot deficiencies in others but when push comes to shove, we mostly make decisions based on emotions and bias rather than objective reasoning regardless of education or religious affiliation. There's a really good book on behavioural economics called Misbehaving: it's a good read. Or you can check out any other good book on one of the behavioural sciences incase you are interested in stuffs like this.

From my own experience and mine alone(so I could be wrong), whenever I get into a conversation where someone starts using words like "that's a so & so fallacy" alot, I just believe that conversation would not go anywhere... Mainly because I believe, we have already assumed a position of objective rationality(which is untrue)and put something on the table neither of us can uphold.... I regularly see where in the process of calling out the other side's fallacy, people end up making other fallacies or sometimes even the same one they are calling the person out for. Cos We are all human.

For me, a better conversation is when we both recognise our differences in worldview/bias and when one party is interpreting something wrongly, its simply pointed out and an explanation is given why their interpretation might be wrong. You end up agreeing on some things and disagreeing on others. At the end of the day everyone walks away, at the very least knowing a bit about how the other side is parsing the same information. That's just my own personal prejudice.

One of my reasons for spending time here is to learn. I would appreciate it if you would point out the fallacies I made.

I can make the case of your reply being an ignoratio elenchi. But as I said above it's really not that important and doesn't make for good conversation (atleast from my own prejudice).

Warpath? Me? Nah, I'm not even warmed up. I don't suffer fools. Based on experience, virtually all of the apologists I've met on Nairaland are pretty foolish, or if you prefer, willfully pig ignorant, arrogant, patronisng and intellectually dishonest.

Ouch I guess.

I believe I've derailed the thread enough though, so I'll just step aside.

Tamaratonye5:

I beg your pardon, what is it about "created’ you don’t understand?

Does this help? Definition of create

It’s not a complex idea. And yes, "created" does infer a creator.

This atheist is not able to believe the universe had a creator. All I can say with confidence is the universe exists. That it seems to have begun with the so-called big bang. I can’t prove that, either can anyone else as far as I'm aware.

To say therefore "god did it" is facile and shallow, in my opinion. Also a logical fallacy "god of the gaps".The fallacy finds its genesis in an argument from ignorance. IE : "I lack the knowledge, imagination and the wit to think of anything else, and my dogmatic certitude will not allow me to simply say I don’t know"

I guess you are really on a war path. Anyway, I actually wanted to get a sense of what you truly meant.

Well, the inflationary big bang model is the only workable model that accurately describes our universe and the space-time theorems do not allow for a universe that is infinite to the past. There's simply no workable theory that accurately describes our universe that bypasses the finitude of the universe to the past.

There are some ways of speculating though, ie The CCC.
And hmm No, the fact that the universe has a beginning and a creation event does not automatically say God. All it means is there's an agent beyond space-time that started the whole shabang. You could postulate that the fundamental laws are themselves that agent eternal. To say God or go any other way, would require putting other pieces on the table, but the BVG and the inflationary big bang model on their own do not tell us anything about the existence of God cos its outside of what they can describe. All they tell at face value is that "In the beginning was the beginning... and that beginning was in the finite past(not eternal). And here are the parameters under which it exist"... Anything outside of that requires a different set of lenses and conversation.
Again I actually just wanted to see what you were tracking but I guess your answer is "You don't know."

It's kinda rich though that you are so quick in accusing me of some fallacy when you were making like 1 or 2 fallacies of your own. Anyway,it's fine...

Modified

Tamaratonye5:

I can have no problem with deities or creation since I don't believe the universe was created, and I don’t believe in any extant deity.

Really not trying to derail the thread, just want you to quickly clarify the bolded. What do you mean by the universe wasn't created?

olasunkanmii:
Ge 5:2 implies a dual creation from the ground for the first created male and female because the common name of Adam was given to both of them. Only the Lilith legend explains the simultaneous creation of both the male and female from the ground.

Lilith’s rebellion explains why God suddenly rescinded permission to eat of every tree, why the tree of knowledge came to exist, and why Adam had to guard the garden.

Lilith’s departure explains how Adam suddenly “became alone” in Ge 2:18. The literal Hebrew of the verse reveals that God did not create Adam alone, but rather that Adam “became alone” after some time.

The OP in its self is not bad as it's just portraying the story of a legend and how people from different sides of the feminism divide are seizing onto it to make different statements, but the moment you start interpreting the Bible through the lense of a folklore then it becomes a problem.

The Lilith as Adam's first wife originated sometime around the 9th or 10th century AD in a Jewish writings, but the idea itself can be traced back to the Babylonian Talmud and possibly to a very brief story in a Midrash written sometime around 300- 500AD.
As you can see the whole legend comes from opinions and speculations of some rabbis living thousands of years after the Genesis story was written.

Adam having another wife is nowhere to be found in the Bible. These speculations arose as a way to try and explain the origin of evil and where demons come from but Just because one or two rabbis writing over a millennia after the account, had a thought doesn't mean the thought is correct and should be taken it as more than that... especially if it has no bases in the Bible itself.

The idea of Lilith as a type of demon itself, that sucks the breath out of babies at night and seduces men can be traced back to mesopotamian demonology and it's from here it gets imported into Jewish thinking before it ultimately gets attached to Adam as his wife in later folklore as stated above,but most of these information isn't important to most people.(just added it to cover all the points).

Like the apostle Paul writing under the influence of the HolySpirit said,
“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. (1corinthians 10:23). Seeking to know in itself is not unlawful and actually commendable most times but not all knowledge is beneficial and reading folklore back into the Bible is definitely harmful.
So please lets remember to test all things and hold on to that which is true and good.

As for the literal Hebrew of the verse revealing that God did not create Adam alone, but rather that Adam “became alone” after some time, That's not correct sir.

LordReed:


https://www.nairaland.com/1412636/non-christian-chatbox-sticky/214#91759275

I could be wrong sir, but I don't think it's because the engagement were bereft of substance, but because you had already made up your mind a priori on what to believe and what not to believe. We all to some degree are guilty of this. Even upto holding onto things we can't necessarily substantiate.

I could be wrong again,but even if God shows up at your doorstop as you want, your mind at this stage would still find a way of rationalizing the experience away.
The human mind is capable of explaining away almost anything; A man can commit the worst atrocities and his mind can still find a way of rationalizing it; In Hitler's mind he thought he was doing his people a service by trying to start a master race. To be clear sir I'm not making a one-to-one relationship between you or anyone and Hitler, I'm just using an extreme example to show how powerful our minds can be in shaping reality even if when we are conscious it.

All in all sir, I truly wish you all the best in your next phase.

HappyPagan:


It's my birthday next month. I'll be 32. It's crazy... I dropped religion at 21. There's been a whole lot of unlearning, weeding my mind of seeds planted carefully long time ago. It's tough, very tough...but everyday I'm grateful I stopped listening to fear.

Unfortunately, I also developed a negative/pessimistic outlook on life.. rarely taking my self or thoughts serious. My life has been a bit out of balance the past few years, hopefully I can get back on track.

I don't want to be known as an ex-Christian. I think there's more to me than that...and I'm hoping time will reveal more...


Hope you good.. my thoughts may be a bit scattered. Hope they make sense..

Happy birthday in advance and God still loves you

LordReed:

I used a Von Neumann machine as a possibility because it is just as speculative as a god.

No sir, a Von Neumann machine is not as speculative as a god because it doesn't fit the bill.

I am not interested in giving examples of a what because that is not what the question is about.

Then it's no longer conversation. In my experience, to hold a meaningful conversation both sides have to hold certain positions they are willing to share and grapple with.

What I think it is is irrelevant right now because the question is focused on why you think it is a personal being.

Actually what you think is very relevant for this to be a real conversation. Hence why I was asking what your goal was? It's only at a trial one side has to proof something and the other side has to just present doubt.

Neither you or DrLiveLogic have answered the question instead you both are dancing around it. The answer I expect would be in the form: I am convinced it's a personal being because of evidence A, B and C and it's not a what because of evidence D, E and F. You guys are just coming up with stuff that completely misses the point.

Well so far sir, it seems to me you are the one making the conversation circular. I've told you to read our previous conversation on why I believe what I believe and I believe you've done that.
https://www.nairaland.com/5908237/story-gods-great-lonliness#90493221

So far you've made only two comments on it. 1) You gave an example of a possible "what", but I think we are both in agreement that wouldn't suffice, and I'm waiting for you to give another possible "what" that can suffice as a self existent thing that is capable of creating a universe with similar constraints as ours. That way we can evaluate both positions and see if this "what" can suffice as creator for our constrained universe just as a "who".
2)You made comments about the initial constraints that I attribute to a mind in my other post, and I mentioned that you were parsing the information incorrectly by your comments. Here also I would like to know how you parse this physical constants and the other versions of the antropic principle from your viewpoint so we can evaluate how it stacks up against what I posited.
So far sir,From my vantage point,it seems to me you've been the one making this conversation circular by either backtracking on things you've said or by side stepping certain aspects of this conversation. I could be wrong but that's how it appears to me.

Only scientists who believe in a god argue that only an uncreated being can originate the universe, other scientists know that investigation beyond Planck time during the big bang at this point is merely speculative/hypothetical. How you are certain it is a personal being is the bone of contention.

Well that is not true sir. Our inability to precisely know what happened beyond the Planck time does not negate whether the universe is created or not. Hence why many in the sciences are trying to come up with different theorems of how the universe came to be as it is i.e the many-world theorems, the bubble universe, different iterations of the cyclic universe and so on. The bone of contention in the sciences is to have a theory of everything, that unifies gravity with the other fundamentally forces at a quantum level and have better understanding of what would have been when all the fundamental forces where one. It's hypothesized that the inflationary period was triggered by the separation of gravity from the other fundamental forces. This are things that become clearer as scientists continue to study black holes.
Like I said in the other thread where we had these conversation,as long as we have an inflationary big bang model as our theory of how the universe got started then the implication is that, this universe, this particular one we are part of has a beginning and is not eternal. Even with the inflationary big bang model ,it's still anybody's best guess what exactly happened at some of the earliest moments of the universe around the10^-36 seconds(that's like 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds) and 10^-32 seconds, i.e what started the inflation? Is it still ongoing today, constantly spitting out pocket universes with ours being on of those universes? what stopped it at the 10^-32 secs when normal expansion took over? Did the universe start out as pure space? Etc But what we do know is this particular universe didn't exist in a steady state.

Now what can never be detected by scientific means not even in a million years,thus we can never know through scientific means is anything that has no causal relationship with our universe. This is where we use logic, philosophy and basic rational as intelligent beings to parse the information we have about our universe and about ourselves to make inference on whether it's a who or a what that started this whole shabang. That is the bone of contention.
Like I said in the other thread where we had this conversation, The whole point of gathering evidence is to narrow down our assumptions.

So there are a couple of things we know at moment with a moderate dose of certainty.
This particular universe we are part of has a beginning, This universe has fixed laws, This universe appears to be fine-tuned for intelligent life and The initial cause has to be outside space-time itself from our perspective.

I've shared a bit on how I parse this data from a Christain point of view on the previous thread we had, I would like to know how you parse this same data from your perspective. We might not agree but atleast I get to see where you are coming from and we can pick up from there.

LordReed:


I am not equating the Von Neumann machine to god.

No sir, you placed it as another good speculation of a god.

My question again, how are you convinced it is a who as opposed to a what.

And I've pointed you to our previous conversation on why God is personal(that conversation is a good place to start) and I believe DrLiveLogic has also given his views from a logic and philosophical standpoint.
The question now is why do you believe it's a what? How are you parsing the data? And what are your likely candidates for a what?

A Von Neumann machine is an example of a what.

Has our previous discussion, Von Neumann machine is not a good example of a what. Can you give another type of what that can fit the bill.

Besides it doesn't even matter if it is created, the question still stands.

It does matter sir, if not this won't be a hot topic in the sciences.

LordReed:


Maybe your should watch it again.

Is not any different from speculating a god did because the question still arises and your answer id to merely assert that your god was not created. Not a very good argument either.

There are other ways of speculating about God but a Von Neumann isn't really a good one. Like I said earlier, a Von Neumann is by definition something that is at some ultimate point created by a mind so it automatically leaves the realm of speculation as a god. For something to be speculated upon as a god, then it has to be self existing ,atleast from our point of reference for what existence means. So either the universe itself is self-existing or someone/something outside of it is self-existing. A Von Neumann machine by definition needs a mind at some ultimate point to begin to exist and needs space in which to exist in, so it by definition cannot fit the bill.
As for the question of who created God , I had a brief conversation with someone else here where I pointed out my take on how to parse it
https://www.nairaland.com/5903518/christians-not-afraid-atheists/1#90374839
You might not agree with it but thats the way it's being parsed in my mind.

You don't think constantly questioning my understanding or my motives is an escalation? You are constantly indulging in ad hominems but that's not escalation for you

Well for me it was odd that you were more interested in what I think over what experts in the field have to say, because I thought the premise of the conversation is to get accurate information on how to view the same data from different points. Atleast that's how it sounded to me when you initially quoted me.

LordReed:


Did you even watch video you linked, it was one of the objections raised.

I used a Von Neumann machine as a possibility because it is just as speculative as a god.

I actually haven't watched the video in a long time but I chose it because I wasn't up for a long drawn out conversation but wanted to point you to something that was somewhat neutral at a high level.

I'm not sure what the other person's reply was but I'm pretty sure he must have been taken aback because like I said at the very best you get a circular reasoning. A Von Neumann machine by definition is a created thing and needs a mind or atleast something outside of itself to create it. So the next question is who/what created it and the possible reply would be another Von Neumann created it, then another who/what created it and a possible reply would be another Von Neumann machine etc so effectively you have to get to a who/what created the first Von Neumann machine which cannot be a Von Neumann machine and you are back to the question of God or worst case scenario an infinite regression and if you have an infinite regression of causes then nothing can actually begin in the first place. Hence why its really not a good argument to start with.

I already stated it before so I don't know why you are asking again. I what to know why you think its a who and not a what. If you think I am looking to trip you up then you need to deal with your paranoia

Well, that escalated quickly.

LordReed:


From what I can see in that thread you believe its a who because of things like the physical constants. You do realise that those constants are relationships of observed phenomenon though, its not like someone looked and saw it written somewhere in the sky that g=9.8m/s², these are things men figured out. How you now derive a personal god out of it is what I am inquiring about. As far as been observed no person is formulating them, they are occurrances of nature. Also why do you think its a person as opposed to a Von Neumann machine for example?

Well sir,I'm not sure you understand what these constants truly are and how they relate to our physical universe, because it seems you are parsing the information incorrectly. I believe there are some videos on the Fermilab institute's channel that are short but we'll articulated that dive into the topic.
There's a reason why the current ways of explaining them from a secular standpoint is mainly either to have an infinite number of universes or some iteration of a cyclic universe.


Secondly, I'm not sure why you would use a Von Neumann machine as a possible example, maybe because its sci-fi but at the very best it would only get us into circular reasoning and at worst it shouldn't even be in the conversation.

Thirdly sir, quick question. Are you more concerned about what the science actually says and how one can parse the data or you are more concerned about having a gotcha moment?

LordReed:


The premise of that conversation is different.

But the science and the rationale are still the same. If you continue to read down, I believe I touched on one or two of the reasons why I believe the creator is personal.

Besides, the best way of grappling with complex concepts that can be viewed from different angles is to listen to conversations of people with deep understanding of the subject parsing it out from opposite sides. You might not agree with either of them but atleast you are not getting an asymmetric information.

LordReed:


While it is good to consider what they have to say I am much more interested in knowing why you think so. What convinces you there is a who and not a what behind all of this.

Well I hold similar viewpoint to the person arguring for a personal creator and I believe we've had a bit of this conversation on another thread. https://www.nairaland.com/5908237/story-gods-great-lonliness#90493221 and you can find other of my conversations with other people on my page.

Besides it's makes whole lot of difference when you can you can see two people with very deep understanding of the subject matter parsing it from two very distinct viewpoints. Atleast it does for me.

Incase you are wondering if it's some religious propaganda. One of the speakers is coming from an atheistic viewpoint and the conversation was held by the atheist society

OtemAtum:

You are very very wrong. I never said that God Almighty is just the universe, but the totality of existence is what I said. The uncountable universes are as well parts of existence and not the whole. And you even said that 'whoever created the universe must exist independent of the universe itself'. This doesn't hold water when we are talking about the totality of existence and not totality of universes. Can Existence(God Almighty) exist independent of existence? That would be a grammatical tautology you know

Okay.