₦airaland Forum

TayserMahiri:
So God is already creating a universe without even proving he existed? No one is being defensive, you are the one who is jumping the gun.

Again, the premise of the discussion was to explain how God existed forever before creating the universe, on that premise there is a fundamental assumption that God exists. That is the way argument works.

further example: Peter and Paul of Psquare who is better singer?

mr A: Peter is a better vocalist.

You: You must first prove they both exist before the comparison.

That is not arguments work, they work in premises, you must argue within the premise of a discussion. You may go back to my first reply to you on this post and figure out the premise again.

Then you want me to reconcile bad premises for you. There is a reason why your initial statement was wrong but you cant see that.

ok

So you stand for both sides of the argument? You want to be where you cant lose

This is a discussion, there is no trophy for who wins and who loses, i am on this sorely as an intellectual exercise not a who loses or who wins thing, that to me is grossly nonsensical. Its about finding out what is truth not about winning or losing.
Winning or losing worry is just another 21st century way of being petty and intellectually arrogant.

You actually think you schooled me here! I know all that. Your point about extra dimensions is completely contrary to these. You dont even realize you brought in theories with completely different implications. Thats a whole new argument. This way we get cyclical and never ending, new arguments brought in when old ones fail.

creatio ex nihilo
creatio ex materia

The idea of the universe creation was never creatio ex nihilo from the Big Bang model, and my explanation on this model since i mentioned you on this discussion have always applied the principles of ex materia. This is not about schooling you but correcting a naive impression on the fundamental idea being ex nihilo.
And not one argument i raised has failed, it wasn't even intended as a debate but an alternative to the explanation.

Unfortunately my interest is not in showing where or if God lived before the big bang. That has to be your job. You said it!

Nope it is not. where God lived is still not in the premise discussed. The basic premise you must remain consistent to is: The relationship between God-forever-creation. How they can be reconciled.

You dont do research with the aim of proving something you preconceive. Otherwise, we would always be misled by our inherent age-old misconceptions about the universe. Preconceived notions are bad basis for research because none of the methodologies will ever work perfectly as results are already determined in your mind. There is an inherent problem with research aimed at showing God was existent in a different dimension. And it doesnt matter what side of the argument you fall, the problem is the same so long as you want to use the scientific method.

Assuming your opponents inherent preconceptions isn't really an argument.

TayserMahiri:
Sounds like there is indisputable evidence for God as far as ur concerned. I dont remember reading your proof??

I never mentioned this as an evidence for God just an explanation of how God could create the universe without a forever being between then and creation. Wasn't this the original premise we were discussing, why drag a non sequitur premise into it now?
Learn to stay in premise, I'm not here to prove God so don't be so defensive.

Would I be right then to say that if nowhere was everywhere, and forever was a moment then God was part of this nowhere and was therefore nothing?

reconcile this logic again

Your point here is now appearing to show that part of that 'nothing' was God. Dont u think its a bad idea to try to explain these stuff scientifically?

No I don't think it's a bad idea. My arguments were sorely based on the implications of physics. The question was answered just as I would when asked 'what happened before the Big Bang?"

I do understand the scientific explanation for the 'time' before the universe but the idea is usually to show that there was 'nothing' before the big bang, not that there was transcedent stuff.

No the idea is usually not about nothing before the Big Bang actually.

-Multiverse theory
-Oscillating universe theory (this is recognized as the most likely case)
It means the universe is just a product of a previously dead universe. All these are implications of the big bang model.
Its not as simple as you thought.

You have now ventured into extrapolation. Dont force this line to fit.

Or maybe you should think further on it, expand what you know about the Big Bang theory

Jungle justice is never ok. Both the ladies and everybody involved in beating them up should face the law

TayserMahiri:
All that is backed by the Bible or where is it from?

None of them are from the bible, those are simple implications of physics as we know them today.

It just seems like physics and the rationalization you are bringing are merging at the big bang (just before).

The arguments were derived based on the consequences of the Big Bang model.

I really dont know maybe you can dig a scripture that explains that.

I don't have to, my argument had nothing to do with any scripture, not the Veda, Koran, Ma'at.

How God was chilling nowhere and at no point in time and then BANG

That is the consequences of no space and time. "Nowhere" is everywhere and forever is a moment.

Assuming the Bible is a reliable guide.

My post didn't mention the bible and has nothing do with the bible.

Though I doubt. As far as your example, I dont think you can delink a movie space-time continuum from the normal spacetime. Even if you pause the movie. But I kinda KINDAAA get what you are trying to say.

I said, the movie space-time is dependent on our own 3d space-time continum but is different. So you are transcendent to the movie universe but confined to our own 3d universe and such analogy may be the case with God(s) extra dimensional beings transcendent from our own space-time continuum.

kevoh:
This question is for johnydon22 and I will gladly ignore any mentions except if it's from Johny until otherwise stated.

I often hear theists end statements with science has not been able to explain this mystery or that mystery.

and they are right only mistaken by assuming inability to explain a mystery now means inability in perpetuity (Mystery simply means things waiting to be figured out)

Now here is my question, if we are to follow the subject of this thread which is the existence of a god, is it that science has so far truly not been able to explain the existence of god or the evidences put forward so far by theists for a god have failed the scientific methods of testing hypothesis.

There are three branches of human knowledge, two of which are intuitive and the other empirical. 1. Logic 2. mathematics 3. Observation. Apart they are great sources of knowledge but are grossly wanting, together, they have greater chance of reaching a truthful approximation. Science amalgamates these three branches.

to answer your question: this argument need not sorely rely on empirical evidences, logical and mathematical evidences can also be put up, refutations and counter refutations based on these premises as long as they do not contradict the laws of logic.

In other words; which ever way you feel best proves or disproves the existence of God, we are open to take you up on any premise

TayserMahiri:
According to first point, so we can say God created himself at the point he created the universe. He created himself simultaneously with the Universe? Not even a millionth of a second before he created it? You see the issue here is trying to have the cake and eat it. You want God to have existed forever including before the universe emerged and you also dont want that period before he created the universe to be referenced as too long a period. If its an instant then we should be right to call it the instant of creation, that specific point when he created it, because not even a millisecond exists before that instant as you dont want it.

You failed to understand the premise of that argument, the argument deals on the assumption that there is no time. In this case there are no forever, a moment can be forever and vise-versa. Everything can be represented in one moment in a plain without time. So checking for the point from when God existed alone to when he created the universe would be like trying to figure out the edge of a spherical earth, there is none.
Take for instance, the Big Bang model, what was before the singularity? what happened before the inflation? Since at this point there was no time, there cannot be asserted to be something that happened before the big bang, so forever and a moment are packed in the same point.
Its a lot to take in, can actually even be dubbed absurd, that'd be fair enough but that is the implication of without [time]

Well the second one sounds worse, who confines God to this hyper time? Does he confine himself to this special dimension. Did he create this hyper time and at what point did he do it? Do we have to go back to the first point and say it was another instance?

Let me demonstrate this in a basic way for you to wrap your head around you.

When you put a movie on your laptop, let's say Thor. The movie plays with a countdown on your screen or video player, that countdown is TIME. Now picture that movie as a universe (alternate) which in principle it is. It has its own time, pausing that movie won't pause the time in reality, it only pauses this movie.

You as an individual watching the movie on your laptop is transcendent from the movie time and space (meaning; you exist outside the 2dimensional space + time of the movie)
But in reality you are also confined to our 3dimensional plain + time.

hopefulLandlord:
This thread has descended into the usual mediocrity

Its amazing my brother. It went down so fast. The quality of minds on this board now is grossly wanting

nwabekeyi:
it's a proof that God exists, since his followers claim he's a super scientist then they should be able to provide these proofs and he should have known about the science of imaging even before we discovered it..

No no. There is evidence and there is a ridiculous demand for non-feasible evidence. This is like asking you to provide video proof of Da Vinci in his workshop painting the Mona Lisa before you agree he made Mona Lisa or even existed.

It is grossly absurd

nwabekeyi:
so show us proof of where God is and a video of him making the first chemical reaction
Also tell us the kind of reaction he did

This is a ridiculous proof seeking. How do you have such video evidences? This is wrong on so many levels.

nwabekeyi:
1. read the "regulation of genetic engineering", these are strict laws guiding genetic modification and engineering, it makes sure that no one comes up with dangerous species..

Genetic engineering isn't creating new life from the scratch, its actually just modifying an already existing life.

2. Like I said, with suitable laboratory and equipment, one can understand the condition necessary to build a new gene and histones from the scratch and make a new organism, it may take years but its achievable

A suitable lab do not give one this understanding. I still disagree that you can make new life in the lab brother.

3. I asked why we are not made of plants Becuase we eat plants because the original poster said plants should be made of sand because they came from the soil. He forgot that plants don't eat sand, they feed on nutrient stored in the sand

Fair enough

Treasure17:
Good questions. All these are mysterious that you can't explain even with science and logic. At the end of the day, you either believe or you don't.

Do you think 'belief' is then a reasonable factor to base our confidence since it accommodates so much uncertainty?

purem:
Haa! Base on the fairy tales religion make us to believe

The world should be better than this

I don't understand this. I am sure most of these religions have reasons why the world is exactly as it is now.

My question is:

You say the world should not be like it is now if there is a God. Why? and how do you suppose a world created by a God should or would be?

nwabekeyi:
My dear, any genetic biologist can create a creature but the problem is what kinda creature will you end up creating and again

Create a creature, how?
What does it mean to create a creature here?
to modify an already existing creature or to create an entirely new one from the scratch?

there are strict lows barring them from doing such

I do not know of any such laws, care to mention one?

for the sake of humanity and inteferring with nature...

We already do, many things you know of today in nature is due to our interference.

Give me a suitable laboratory and ask me to make a living thing, I will do it

Amazing, you should have a nobel prize already my brother. This is the holy grail of biological science, creating a new life from the scratch.

it's just all about creating a stabilized genetic sequence and expressing the genes but like I said, that might be detrimental to the existence of humanity.

No it is not, and i disagree that you can do this neither is it detrimental to the existence of humanity.

And again, the concept of sweet and bitter fruit is explanable by the genetic characterized of the plants involved.

Fair enough

You eat plants, have you asked yourself why you are not made of plants?

I do not understand this question. This is like asking, have you asked why plants are not made of you.

You are not made of plants because you are not a plant, if you were a plant, you would be made of plant (plant cells)

enilove:
Did your advance biology teach you how to create your own kind of fruit with the sweetness you desire?

Humans have been doing this all the time. All the fruits you know of today were directly created due to the influence of humans. Bananas did not taste like they do now before, apples, oranges, strawberries, all these fruits are totally different and tastes different from their ancestors and this was because of humans and the factor of artificial selection.

This is also true for domesticated animals like cows, dogs and horses etc.

Is biology not useless to you when there is a need to get "blood " to save a dying soul?

How so?

Biology will teach you the functions of reproductive organs but cannot produce any organ.
It will teach you how the blood circulates but cannot teach you how to produce that blood.
It will teach the functions of the heart and kidneys but can never produce any.

I'm pretty sure modern biotechnologies can print or grow organs in the lab.

What point is this supposed to make brother?

Your life itself is a mystery.

I disagree.

That thing or breath which gives you existence as a human is a mysterious thing which all the scientists of old and new put together cannot understand.

I also disagree. We understand oxygen well enough down to its atomic compositions.

That "breath of life " is what the biology will never teach you nor talk about. What makes you a living being is not known to biology and can never be known or created by any man , because it is also a mystery.

This is also incorrect.

Did you learn from your advance biology how and why we have a sweet fruit and a tasteless fruit from the same soil?
Is the sweetness coming from the soil or from the tree itself?

Tree augmented by soil nutrients.

Even thinking about how plants turn water and carbon dioxide into food when there is sunlight is a pointer that there is a designer somewhere somehow.

Good point, could be compared to our solar panels today. Even though there are other likely alternatives.

There is a Greater Creator whose name is Jesus Christ that created these things which science can never understand.

How did you get to know this creator so well that you know the creator has a name?

Science cannot create "water". Water is a mystery.

Yes we can, even you can. Water is not a mystery.

There is a God, it does not matter whether you believe or not. He exists and will ever be God.

This is not really a good argument brother

tamethem:
If life came by "Chance" ( the big bang) then "Chance" must be very very intelligent!.

Intelligent in that, everything Chance created works beautifully hand in hand.

To mention but a few , Chance created

the Sun,
the moon
the stars,
the Air,
the water
the man
the trees
And the Animals

But can "Chance" be intelligent?

Is Chance a living thing?

We need to know and come to the knowledge of this before we proceed on this matter.

The Big bang theory says a sudden explosion occurred and every thing both living and non living came to existence.

That means that the sudden explosion called the Big Bang was created by chance. Which eventually created the universe.

If the Big Bang is an explosion, it means it is a Non Living thing.
Uhhm. Abi?

So "Chance" is non living and can never ever be intelligent.
Only a Being with a Brain can be intelligent. And it could only be Someone.

Now if Chance created the Universe and everything there in, then Chance must be extremely intelligent to have known where and how to place or create each creation without any flaw that would have spelled doom for the world and its inhabitants.

Everyone knows that without the Sun, there is no life!
And the Scientists even claim that if the sun had been a little farther than it is, the earth would be frozen and if it had been placed closer than it is, no living thing would exist on the earth either for excessive heat.

Then this Chance must be intelligent!

but unfortunately it can not think?
It is not a living thing! Oops!


If there was no provision of Water, nothing will live on the earth also, What about the Air we breath
If there was no Air nothing would live on the earth. ( Man breaths in oxygen and breaths out carbon dioxide while plants breath in carbon dioxide and release oxygen) What a cycle!

The Big Bang is intelligent! but can not think?

It is non living

What about water. No water no life and yet the Big bang knew water is essential to life and so made provision for it.

What a smart non living thing!

Brainless but smart? is it possible?

The water Cycle nko.

The Sun does it job through evaporation and the rain does its own by pouring it down.

The Big Bang is wonderfully smart! Reasoning without a brain

Now come to think of we humans that the "Big Bang created" without a sense!

A non living thing creating living things. Wonders shall never end

What a awesome Irony !

The Big bang without a Brain gave us brain knowing so well we will need it to think.
the same thinking it does without a brain. Wow!

Now he gave us all the organs each for different tasks. And if by mistake you give the Nose the job of the Mouth or the Ear the job of the nose it is catastrophic.
The Big Bang made every one perfectly designed without an error. despite the fact that it is by Chance!

Lastly, Check the make of Man and see the wonderful work of "Chance".

The Digestive System. from one step to the order.

The Eye lense,

The Heart beat and the blood network

The brain sections controlling every part of the body to the smallest.
The body antibiotics etc.

All came through the Big Bang's intelligence! the same called " Chance"

Finally no Sensible human should believe Chance made all things working perfectly for the smooth running of life.

Because Chance or the Big Bang has no Sense because it is a non living.

And only a senseless beign would believe a Non living made a Living.

Chance is as good as a Mistake
and Mistakes don't make a living thing but rather it is a living thing that can make a Mistake



God Exists, He intelligently made all things.

It obvious Now. Think!

This argument is easily refutable though but well, nice.

LiXxGH:
He indirectly talked to me through my pastor who believes in the same God...Though everyone has his/her own God or god, i strongly believe mine does exist. Now to clear up things, i sat one on one with my pastor for the first time during counceling and he began telling me stuff i did in the past which i thought no one will or would ever know, then i felt so ashamed and remoseful...u think this could be magic and not the power of God?

Woooow

darkchild64:
op I remember you said that personal beliefs and sentiments would not be entertained,well I guess it can't be helped,Christians would always impose their beliefs on others they don't care about bringing evidence

I am just speechless, i so badly wanted to hear better arguments than this but well, we respect every opinion and ideas, so if this is the best way they understand what God may be then its all good.

TayserMahiri:
What was God doing for all those zillions of years before the idea of creating a universe crossed his mind? Did he get bored?

To be fair there are two possibilities for this transcendance argument.

-If there was no time, then from God being alone to creating the universe could still be perceived as an instance.

or

- God is confined to a hyper-time that transcends ours and ours is dependent on this hyper-time. for example, the time in a video playing on your phone is different from the time you are in but is still dependent on it.

Spiye06:
A God to me is a being that supersedes every other being created.with a very high and extreme quality in which no one possesses. that is why he says have no other God but me cos am a jealous God.if u call a tree a god makes it ur creator and placing it above the living God.He is in charge in controll and has authority over everythin both on earth in heaven and below the earth.supream power makes him a GOD

If you are a being that supersedes every other being in the cosmos, as a matter of fact, you created these beings, of whom exactly could you be jealous of and why?

Treasure17:
Here is the thing. For the fact that there's a creation, definitely there must be a creator behind the creation.

Not necessarily true as observed but lets continue.

The creation require supernatural ideas and rationality because when you look at the creation you will discover that things don't just exist on their own.

The supernatural happen to exist on its own though or does it need another super-supernatural idea?

These things are beyond human comprehension.

I disagree

Supernatural in this context means invincible being.

Re-evaluate this definition.

enilove:
No.

God is the ONLY Creator that was not created.

Isn't the same thing i said? God is proof that something can exist, be complex and still be uncreated.

enilove:
Let me put it in the right sentence for you , " there is no creation without a Creator except God.

So God is proof that something can be complex and exist without being created?

purem:
I solemnly believe that if God does exist this world wouldn't be like this

How would you suppose it would or should be?

nwabekeyi:
lol, how come fruits are not sandy?

Is this really a point?

How come sands are not fruity?

nwabekeyi:
Personally for now, I can't really say that God doesn't exist until science explains the origin and the source of energy responsible for bigbang

So fundamentally for you, God is a placeholder for a yet to be determined knowledge? God holds the distinction until we figure it out then we take it from God?

I doubt if objectiveness works with placeholders.

but I still strongly believe that God doesnt interfere in the proceeding of the universe via miracle and supernatural means

A non-intervening God, Great idea.

Niflheim:
@johnnydon22,

Yes!!!

Ok let me see:

A transcendant all powerful (not necessarily) but ultimate entity usually attributed with the role of cosmological causality.

purem:
If a question like this can come from one of the most knowledgeable atheist on nairaland then someone like me cannot be atheists

Just for intellectual exercise. we need to listen to each other more often. Its not always about who is right or who is right, it should be about what is right?

However one cannot basically assume that God does or doesn't exist

There are so many things we can assume, but that does not affect objective truths.

Theist claims that if God doesn't exist why do you spent most of your time arguing about his inexistence?

That is like asking, if the earth is not flat, why would people be seen arguing it.
I think this is quite an absurd remark from people who toll such line of such, it is wrong in so many ways. existential probability or possibility of a subject does not depend on the argumentative nature of its concept.

enilove:
The clothes you are putting on , your shoes , TV , the house you live were made by someone . Why do think that the universe, as complex and perfect as it is was not the handwork of someone?

Take for example the fruits of various kinds and their sweetness . How do they come about their sweetness , from the soil or from the sky. Can science derive sweetness from the soil ?

Also , how come the fruits are never sandy , despite the facts that they are products of the soil ?

There is a Creator that made all these things.

So your argument basically is hinting that complexity must have a causality?

correct?

Niflheim:
@johnnydon22,

"But what is a god? "...........asked the igtheist.

"God is not singular, he is plural"..............said the adevist.

"God exists only in prehistoric caveman books".................said the anthropotheist."

"Anytime I want to see god, I look in the mirror ".......................said the ophidian suitheist.

So a definition of the terms of the premise is necessary then?

LiXxGH:
God exist...
1st i heard about Him
Then i believed
And when i pray He answers.

God talked to you?
Now that is another dimension? do you mind if we go deeper on this information?

Treasure17:
Of course God exists. There must be a supernatural being responsible for the creation of the universe.

Why do you think the creation of the universe must require a supernatural causality?

care to explain to us what supernatural means in this context?

enilove:
God exists.

why?