₦airaland Forum

Emusan:
You said this from OP:
"In the big bang theory, a singularity of infinite mass banged into our universe."

Isn't the first single cell infinite?

To be clear.

Singularity isn't same thing as a a cell.

So, first cell wasn't in any way infinite, never implied to be so.

I'm yet to get your point

Emusan:
The same thing with evolution of single cell

How so?

Because i can't see the connection.

No right thinking person can look into all these postulations and won't laugh at those who hold their faith on them.

I don't think so

dawnomike:
Yes... It can be proven by contradiction using Real Algebraic Maths.

Indulge me

Here is one thing we know about infinity, it is not quantifiable or divisible.

There cannot be two infinities otherwise, they are finite. There is just infinity.

In the big bang theory, a singularity of infinite mass banged into our universe.

But the problem is, this universe isn't infinite.

So, how can an infinite value give rise to something finite?

This suggests that infinity is divisible.

But the problem is, infinite divide by 2 is still infinity, infinity divided by infinity is still infinity.

How do you make sense of this problem?

How does an infinite cause lead to a finite effect?

donPhill:
Are you for real?

Yes. Saw your missed call Phil

ralphyoung123:
Is karu not in nassarawa state, although close to F.c.t, I live close to dei-dei junction, close to Wuse Market, gwarimpa estaste. Seems u live close to Asokoro estate.

Yes

ralphyoung123:
Are u still in Abuja ?, where in Abuja ?

I live in Abuja now. Karu side

This thread unsurprisingly have a low turn out.

kkins25:
We are not talking about certain animals are we? After all certain animals like the water spider literally walks on water.

That doesn't go contrary to the laws of physics at all

SocialJustice:
Yeah you're right, bees are not special. I haven't had any special encounter but God walked on water.

Lmao

vaxx:
johnydon22 . Can you now see the Op validate my point. He is now asking for human perspective about the changes.....

Now he has left the original premise his OP raised.

LordReed:
I was only pulling your legs johny.



In part yes the logicality of the idea but more I want to know if there is anyone who has witnessed such a thing.

If logically, then Yes. Conceptually God can.

vaxx:
how will you know if the law are changed or not changed without human perspective?

The question assumes the observers can ascertain change in the laws as it is.

E.g: Humans can't walk on water, suddenly they start doing so.

And as i said before, the premise is less about observing it and more about if God can do it.

LordReed:
LoL! Johny you a theist now?

No, I am not. You asked a question based on this assumption;

1. God exist.

My answers should be in coincide to your question or would you have me start arguing the existence of God on a thread that has nothing to do with it?

Any real life example of this?

Is your question about real life events or the logicality behind the idea that God can change natural laws at a whim?

Because if we follow your question, the answer is; Yes, God can alter the laws of physics as we know them.
(This is based on a fundamental assumption that God exists for this particular question)

vaxx:
how will you even know if the law are changed or not changed without observation. It is only what your human mind can understand that you can work with. Base on human mind , laws can change base on our current perspective. law are not set in stone. New observation open door to new understanding. So yes, by our perspective, natural law can change.

Again, human perspective isn't the premise.

vaxx:
what don't you understand?


This simply means nothing is actually changing but the human perspective. If X is known to produce B cus of D and it is later understood that X dosnt produce B, it is B that produce X to make D. It is simply telling us nothing is actually changing but human perspective that is observing this phenomenom. And if it occur, it certainly means there is improvement to our observation.

So, how does this connect to the OP's question? Because it is still unclear.

His question is built on the premise of Natural laws being changed on the whim of God not human perspective of natural laws changing.

vaxx:
You are asking the same question you raised in the former thread. If God is omniscience?. X should be able to do x. An unintelligent question.

Well, laws are not cast in stone, laws of nature are not permantely fixed, improvement occur as we can see using the laws of motion as defined by newtom. they have been invalidated after we realised there exists a phenomenon called "relativity" thanks to Albert Einstein. which defies the second law. So the "laws" were improved. Similar was the fate of other 'classical laws.

Now scientists have developed a more refined set of equations and principles to explain the phenomenons that were once contradictory to the newer observations.

Since science is a continuous ways of improving our understanding of the universe, we expect more of this to come in the future. So Holding to the notion that God exists> one can safely conclude that whatever observations scientists make about the universe now, they will simply expand the scope of laws to bring those observations under the umbrella of science.


So in theory ""Science does not mandate observations to follow the laws; it mandates that the laws should explain the observations""

Improvements in human scientific understanding of physics doesn't mean change in physics in itself but simply change in human understanding of it.

So, i don't really understand this comment.

LordReed:
Or can your god do things that completely defy the laws as we know them?

Logically, Yes.

Kingosytex:
i think the pope's version of the line is better, GOD certainly can't lead anyone into temptation

That pope's line has been in use in the Igbo version of the prayer for a very long time now.

Ranchhoddas:
Less threats, more refutations.

Any talk that is not related to the issue at hand is unwelcome. You all should stop "talking" and start talking.

It's amazing really, such discussion that would have been interesting is drowned in long articulated rigmaroles oozing of unquestionable egos and non sequitur remarks.

You could have a very almost 1,500 words post or counter post, 90% of has absolutely nothing to do with the post.

Another curious thing is; the bible is the center of Christian morality, the very basis of Christian theology yet takes has so almost relegated presence here.

LordReed:
Hey johnydon22, would you care to ask the religious is they would prefer a world without atheists just for contrast?

Now that you've mentioned it, i suppose i will or perhaps i have to now. Lol

XxSabrinaxX:
No. I wouldn't prefer a world without religion

Right

Billy0naire:
Religions are just simulation programs for mass control, it has outlived its welcome.

Don't you think that any idea that enjoys mass trust can be a great tool for mass control.

XxSabrinaxX:
Huh. Never really noticed this thread before.

Honestly... Who cares?

A Religionless world still has human beings. And human beings will be human beings. We'll still find other ways to control and marginalize and manipulate people

Uuuuhm, so, Your answer is?

budaatum:
You know buda. Lol.

I recommend Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus for a right royal headfuq.

Just downloaded this. Thank you for the recommendation

LordReed:
Is the whale a mammal or a fish?

Mammal.

LordReed:
My dear buda a thing that exists cannot itself be a contradiction because it exists. If you say something that contradicts something you said or will say then one of your statements is incorrect. Even the biggest apparent contradiction in our world the whale, has been resolved to not be a contradiction.

Interesting, never came across the idea of whales being contradictions. Can you tell me more about this?

Binikingdowm:
They want Christians to appear poor and dirty like them,almajiris Muslims all over Christianland in Nigeria.

Sorry to disappoint, Christians are met to be rich, to own private jets and live in best mansion

Mark 10: 17 - 21

17 As Jesus was starting out on his way to Jerusalem, a man came running up to him, knelt down, and asked, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked. “Only God is truly good. 19 But to answer your question, you know the commandments: ‘You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.’[a]”

20 “Teacher,” the man replied, “I’ve obeyed all these commandments since I was young.”

21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”


You were saying?

FOLYKAZE:
You actually know what God is. Your problem is what makes Earth a God. Go find that out... You aint making sense currently

He could find out from you, couldn't he?

Why not tell him?

gensteejay:
Keep denying what's obvious. Anybody one that followed our discussion from the first 2 times you mentioned me on this thread would see your comments are in support of the atheistic position of your fellow atheist.

Once you ask someone a question and they state their opinion and you then disagree with their stance, an argument has started.

It's quite simple and needs no twisting or lies.

Oh God. I give up!!!

gensteejay:
Ok. So you were arguing with FOLYKAZE about God's existence and I made some inputs to support his stance and johnydon22 made some contributions to support yours.

Actually my contributions wasn't in support of LordReed, it was a question demanding clarity from you.

I don't see how that simple question is difficult to comprehend

But this comment now shows me what your problem is, it is all about, me or us vs you or them, hence when someone asks a simple question, you go on the offensive giving the impression you don't even understand what they said in the first place.

gensteejay:
By looking for inconsistencies, errors in scientific, historical facts, contradictory claims. By reading as many accounts as possible.

There, isn't this better?

Who cares? How do you think your atheistic convictions affect me as a person?

Never said it did, replying arguments in your head again?

Yesterday night and this morning, I only took part briefly in an argument between LordReed and FOLYKAZE for the sake of non-atheists who are also irreligious that are on this thread or will check it in the future.

So, you do have a mission then? Lol

Yes, since atheists mostly care about winning arguments,

Assuming again i see? This is why you tend to argue wrongly.

I asked a question, which is a tool for further understanding, you took it as an argument and started arguing with yourself without answering the question.

For someone who wants atheists to think more deeply, you aren't doing a good job yourself.

they don't think deeply about things they say, whether they are reasonable or not, to win arguments. That's why engaging in such arguments is a waste of time.

I don't see any difference between you and these atheists you describe judging from your reaction to my question.

gensteejay:
Yes, that's one the ways to do so and Google, YouTube, etc. are only media (means) of getting such info. It's the content of that information, logic and facts (historical, scientific) in it that determine its veracity not the medium.

You are still not saying anything. How do you establish that a content is true?

I don't have the luxury of time for that.

You have already spent too much time on this for this statement to be true.

I am not on a soul-winning mission like religionists and you knowing/admitting that the God Almighty exists and is existence itself, doesn't add a single kobo to my account.

You are now assuming to know my mission?

Wow, you are not just intelligent but a psychic too and i didn't know.

Time will make all truths known.

LOL, time is short. Jesus has been coming soon for 2000 years now, so i trust you'd understand when i don't take such ambiguous misplaced statement such as yours serious.

I'm not interested in this argument any longer.

Were we arguing? I didn't realize that.

My questions were simple and that's all i care about.

There is no argument here other than the one you are creating in your mind in order to avoid simple questions.