₦airaland Forum

spacetacular:
Erwin Schrodinger originated the multiverse theory and guess what he was and why he theorised it.

You reply posts without even knowing the underlying point it addresses, you are just trying to argue.

felixomor:
Bros, everything you say is your wishes.
Not scientific facts.
The age of the universe is well documented.

So you agree with me that the Big bang theory is correct?

Please cite one credible reference for eternal universe.
Its very obvious you have no idea what the laws of thermodynamics states.
That is why you are attributing a kind of consciousness to the universe by calling it a self sustaining system.

Systems do not have to be conscious to be self sustaining, I am pretty sure stars aren't conscious.

Anyway, I am waiting for you to cite credible documents for eternal Universe.

These profound and lovely images are, I like to imagine, a kind of premonition of modern astronomical ideas.* Very likely, the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang, but it is by no means clear that it will continue to expand forever. The expansion may gradually slow, stop and reverse itself. If there is less than a certain critical amount of matter in the universe, the gravitation of the receding galaxies will be insufficient to stop the expansion, and the universe will run away forever. But if there is more matter than we can see - hidden away in black holes, say, or in hot but invisible gas between the galaxies - then the universe will hold together gravitationally and partake of a very Indian succession of cycles, expansion followed by contraction, universe upon universe, Cosmos without end. If we live in such an oscillating universe, then the Big Bang is not the creation of the Cosmos but merely the end of the previous cycle, the destruction of the last incarnation of the Cosmos.

The cosmos By Carl Sagan

I wonder how the point eludes everyone here, its actually very simple.

Our cosmology is yet to determine the actually state of the universe, we cannot conclusively state whether it is eternal or not - these are all possible results of the big bang cosmological mode.

felixomor:
Please go and learn
Earth is part of this universe.
And even if you are correct, then its components which would have also been components of the previous universe will have no age.

The sun, earth, stars all have carbon as part of it.
If you say the universe is eternal, you are only spoiling your logic.
Because the estimated ages of these bodies will all be wrong.

You will end up running around a circle

So if the universe is 15billion years we could then say that everything in the universe is 15billion years going by this logic, Yes?

KingEbukasBlog:
The Multiverse theory especially came from science fiction . It was science fiction for mere entertainment before atheist scientists started considering such as a new way to explain away God . There is no evidence to support it and a multiverse still does not preclude the existence of God .

I am quite certain that the possibilities of other galaxies was once a subject of science fiction.

Rev fr geodano Bruno was burnt at the stake for daring to assume there may be countless number of worlds some inhabited.

The Multiverse theory is just as much inclusion of external influence as God, no less observationally feasible as God.

So as I have maintained the lesson is clear: these are of no relevance within our space/time (universe)

spacetacular:
God does not simply exist! God is the cause of existence. In a nutshell, GOD IS!

God is the one who was before existence began as we know it.

We talk about existence from the human materialistic nature but the intangibility of the spiritual does not talk about existence as we know it. It's like trying to say you know the origin of the wind.

You could say the wind is caused by the sun heating the earth and causing air to rise and then the earth's rotation causing the wind to move anticlockwise or Coriolis effect but can there be wind without air?

Air is made up of various gases but without the cause of these gases can we have air? If you keep following this backwards you would surely know that PURPOSE was behind all things.

Have you bothered to find out what the earth would be like if there was absolutely no wind? I suggest you look into this and then tell me about your no intelligence behind creation theory.

Ok. Can I now continue my discussion?

Ermacc:
You are also making confident remarks on the eternity of the universe based on mere speculations. If you have really followed the hawkins lectures, you would have gone across the backlash it has received. Big bang isn't a fact and pre big bang will only be laughable.

I have not made any such remark. My stance remains we are yet to scientifically reach a conclusion that the cosmos is not eternal or is eternal.

And yes disagreements are the soul of the progress of science.

Surely pre-big band would be laughable going by Hawkin's lecture which is a subject of discuss here, anything like pre-big bang is of no observational consequence therefore can be neglected and meaningless to us

KingEbukasBlog:
He said that because he thought the universe created itself because of gravity and that since it created itself , it sustains itself . Mathematician and Scientist John Lennox handled that properly , he said :

Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton's laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.

Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?

Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for 'the blue touch paper' to be lit to 'set the universe going', the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?

Much of the rationale behind Hawking's argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise.

But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

The summary simply is : There is no such thing as self contained , self sufficient universe .

And this post totally steered clear of Hawkins talks in the Brief history of time.

Here let me post Hawkins point under the premise.

"It seems that Quantum theory, on the other hand, can predict how the universe will begin. Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.

The three directions in space, and the one direction of imaginary time, make up what is called a Euclidean space-time. I don't think anyone can picture a four dimensional curve space. But it is not too difficult to visualise a two dimensional surface, like a saddle, or the surface of a football.

In fact, James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off.

If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.
"

If the universe started at a Singularity then as Hawkin implied on his talk, at a singularity solving from the theory of relativity the Laws of Physics does not apply, therefore Quantum mechanics is needed to find a solution to this.

You see after all said and done we get at the crossroad, Hawkin talked about time and space being birthed by a singularity which by definition is infinite but remarkably said nothing about such singularity having a beginning.

I believe its now falling into place, space/time have an origin at a singularity. Yes.

Does science or Hawkin's lecture also imply this singularity had a beginning?

Now when someone tells you that Science is yet to arrive at a consensus on the cosmos having a beginning, don't pull out Hawkins lecture on time.(Mind you Hawkins lecture was not his opinion but rather a summary of the cosmological progress made yet in the scientific enterprise)

The cosmos may or may yet no have a beginning - this is an uncertainty, you may do well and find roles for God, I have gone past the stage of haggling over such trivial assertions.

Until we conclusively reach a closure on the state of the cosmos, consequently the implications of the big bang theory remains no matter what your opinion is.

"Anything outside our space/time is irrelevant and has no observational consequence, therefore is of no use or meaning to us since it cannot perform functions within our space/time"

Let's represent the models we discuss as they are and not cherrypick opinions we think agrees with us.

KingEbukasBlog:
No no my brothers . Nothing or non existence there means material . Immaterial is seen as nothing or non existent from the materialist point of view .

God is an immaterial being .

But still something that exists isn't it?

KingEbukasBlog:
Of course . When a Christian is skeptical about Islam , he wants you to see that Christianity is the right religion ; when a Muslim is skeptical about Islam , he wants you to see that Islam is the right religion ; when a deist is skeptical about religion , he wants you to know that you can acknowledge God without religion . Now if an atheist is skeptical about religion , what does he want to achieve ?

you can't figure it out from the secessive line of reasons you just gave?

He wants to show you there can be life without religion, he also may want to show you that religious claims are untrue.

There are countless reasons one can give and you cannot tell me that you didn't imagine these reasons before writing the above

Therefore , there is no God? You see the problem ? He is entangled with the false position that God is within the purview of religion

someone atheist or not can talk about religion independent of the argument on the existence of God, just like a deist talking about religion.

The typical Nairaland atheist sees it this way . Of what use is being skeptical about religion to an irreligious atheist when there is no really no end purpose ?

there is always an end to the purpose as I have shown above.

If you advocate silence on matters of public concern why not do so by being silent to demonstrate its effectiveness.

That said an atheist may gain nothing by arguing against religions but religions have everything to lose.

So it may be someone speaking against a system they find quite degrading, it may be someone trying to straighten out inconsistencies in religious postulations or even addressing the preferencial treatment religion enjoys in the society.

These all are very valid reason.

Surely what ever anyone's reasons are you cannot deny they all have as much reason to argue about religion as much as much a Christian against Islam.

spacetacular:
WHAT IF!

so you are holding on to atheism based on a WHAT IF?

As you can clearly see, you are so full of faith.

CoolUsername please ignore this and continue with the interesting discussion.

CoolUsername:
God comes from the notion that non-existence is the default of reality. What if the universe in some form has always existed?

If nonexistence is a default state then God himself would also have to be nonexistent at some point. So if anything at all can exist then nonexistence cannot be assumed to be the default state.

KingEbukasBlog:
You don't get the point bro . Atheists here are skeptical of religion with the erroneous belief that it questions the existence of God . Is Religious Skepticism atheism ?

Religious skepticism is hardly same thing as atheism but you can also agree that if anyone can be a religious skeptic atheist also can?

If yes then there you have it

KingEbukasBlog:
The first paragraph in the lecture begins with a clear and lucid summary of the content of the lecture :

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago.

Then ends it with :

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

Please where is the suggestion of an eternal universe in the lecture ? Because I can't find it .

My simple remark was that the lecture was not as simple as you'd hope it is. A beginning to time does not preclude an eternal cosmos as Carl Sagan put it. I wish this would be a ground for me to break this whole matter to very simple bits for everyone to understand.

Here is an interesting part of Hawkins talk

"If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe. "

The universe is totally self contained and self sufficient. In Carl Sagan book the cosmos the fate of the universe is determined by the effects of gravity.

If the Big crunch is correct then there would be another Big bang after this universe when everything goes back to a singularity, therefore this Big bang was not the first or would it be the last but rather one out of an infinite circle of this universe.

I told you it wasnt as simple as you'd think

I explained God's role in an eternal universe fully here with panentheism .

https://www.nairaland.com/3914088/deism-last-refuge-dubious-religious/7#58379572

And I'm not sure why your ilks keep bringing it up every time because I've easily rebutted it severally

God can end the existence of material universe which has coexisted with it from past infinitude because It sustains it . God is the sustainer of all reality

To this I'd just say Lol.

You agree with Hawkins lectures on the beginning of time and not the non-consequence of values outside the universe?

If you agree to Hawkins lecture then the universe as he also said is self contained and self sustained therefore needs no external sustainer.

If our time and space began at our big bang then you could also agree with us scientifically that anything outside our space/time is of no consequence inside our space/time therefore there cannot be such a thing as an external sustainer of reality its just a clutch to find a usefulness for God.

We'll discuss the whole of Hawkins lecture

Dalamama:
The ig crunch was actually theorized by someone, its only a speculation . It is just one of the ideas out there. Some other scientist claim it will keep expanding for ever even after it has used up all its energy meaning that there will never be a time where there will be nothing.

a good theory is one that can make observational predictions, one that is backed by observations therefore can be falsified.

The big crunch is a direction of the Big bang cosmological model.

Yes it could expand forever, this is also consistent with the big bang but I earlier mentioned Gravity.

The matter in the universe and ultimately gravity determines the direction of the universe in the time graph

When it comes to the universe and it's origin all we have are just speculations.

any speculation backed by observations is a very good speculation and our confidence on it can only grow until falsified by observations

We don't know when and how it began and she and how it will end.

we can know and we are making progress gradually what we cannot know is events outside the universe.

Relativity breaks down at a Big bang singularity that is why quantum theory of gravity is hoped to develop a more sufficient mathematics at that singularity state.

We just have differenttheories and speculations.

I understand your point but most of these theories has been discarded.

I mentioned above: A good scientific theory is one that can make observational predictions and can be consistent with observations.

Once an observation even 1 disagrees with a theory, it is discarded or modified to a more fitting theory to agree with observations.

In that way our progress evolves

felixomor:
No it wasnt. There is no evidence for that

lol I wish you'd stop making such confident remarks on a naive footing

Even if u are correct,
And you will even still end up deadlocking yourself
With the question;
What gave rise to the previous universe?

The scientific answer to that is the universe would be a totally self contained system unneeding of external nudges.

I want so badly to teach you these things but I can't do that if you wouldn't be willing to listen with humiloty and not clawing to argue.

Secondly,
The cabon dating age for the components of this universe would all be wrong and dating as a whole will be wrong, if what you are saying is correct.....

No they wouldn't, this is physics sir not as simple as you think.

You see,
Its either you loose big or loose small.

its always about winning to you not about what is right.

That is always the problem, how can you ever grow with that?

Dalamama:
Stop presenting scientific speculations as of they are facts. Origin science as it stands now is purely speculative. If the universe had a beginning then will there ever be a time when it will end and there will be nothing at all just like the beginning?

Yes they would be a time it would end which is called the Big Crunch.

Which is gravity eventually stopping and reversing the expansion to collasp back on itself.

KingEbukasBlog:
1. Stop talking of an eternal universe if you cannot produce scientific evidence that the universe is one

I wish here on nairaland people would be more willing to hear more of what they don't know yet, everyone just wants to lash out and win an argument even if they are wrong.

2. Here is Stephen Hawking's lecture on why there is no evidence for an eternal universe

www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Did you read the whole lecture? He summarized his book "A brief history of time" there.

Please read the whole thing and we can discuss it its not really as simple as you hoped.

3. How does an eternal universe preclude the existence of God ?

It doesnt, even Hawkins lectures doesn't preclude the existence of God, they both have one thing in common and that is the role of God in the model.

From Hawkins lectures and the eternal universe theory God is unneeded and has no consequence in causing the universe.

But that doesn't stop God from existing outside the universe to which Hawkins will say is useless to us as can never know things outside space and time, they will have no observational consequence within our space/time so we might as well cut them off.

Which brings me back to one question I have been ringing about before.

If God didn't create the universe, is God still God?

Or

Is God God because it created the universe?

KingEbukasBlog:
My point is that the focus here has been on religion when its supposed to be on God .

I am lost how you aim to tell someone what topic of discuss they are supposed to dabble into and which they aren't

Atheists can be in religion and there are people who are without religion who still believe in God

exactly, which then means an atheist can also talk about religion, No?

You shouldn't be discussing about Psalm 3 :1 with a theist , you should be talking about God and Cosmology and why you reject deification .

And you forgot that theists that they engage often comes up with one Sura or one psalm. God becomes subdivided into religious inclination thus birthing the need to address every religious view point when it is necessary while still discussing God which this religious structure represents.

I am sure religious atheists don't pray Psalm 3 do they?

felixomor:
So who estimated the age of the universe?
Footballers?

Lol I ever so politely asked if I am to teach you a little, if you want to learn you have to come down your high horse and try to listen.

I knew that's what you would come up with "Big Bang" which is almost certainly a fact. But if you were someone humble and open intellectually you would have opted to learn the rest about the model.

Would you like to learn?

CatfishBilly:
When did the universe begin? Please don't say the big bang.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha this will be interesting

felixomor:
The universe is not eternal
It has a beginning
Its age has even been estimated.

I don't suppose you have somehow managed to find a unified theory that brings Quantum mechanics and relativity together?

Because if you haven't, scientific cosmology have not arrived at a conclusive answer on the universe having a beginning or an end, The big bang cosmological model does not preclude an eternal universe.

Perhaps you'd want me to clear you up on that?

I am always happy to teach the tiny science i know especially astronomical physics and cosmology

spacetacular:
As an atheist what do you know about THE DIVINE? and do you have any pointers to what makes Religion political and cultural because the last time I checked, religion has absolutely no scholarly consensus over it.

So you cannot tell that religion is in fact a cultural construct and culture is born out of political structure of a particular people. One look at every religion in the world there is always an underlying culture behind the theme and motif. islam, Hinduism, judaism, christianity, Buddhism.

I am sorry but you have much to learn if such simple truths elude you

Again I ask, what is the purpose of talking about it besides scepticism or a deliberate attempt not to understand it?

There are many reasons to discuss any given matter and this holds true for any person that engages in such a discussion. I resent gambling, i am free to talk about gambling either as a way to communicate my opinions about gambling or an attempt to bring others to the light of the implications of gambling.

One is free to discuss religion due to reasons independent of the one options you have given above and Oh i am particularly glad about the "skepticism reason" isn't that enough reason to discuss religion?

We are not talking about politics but RELIGION. what is your reason for discussing it?

oh it is simple i will list it for you

1. because i want to
2. because i can
3. because it is a public matter and i am part of the public
4. because i am skeptical about religious ideas and postulations (as we should be about almost every idea)
5. because it is fun
6. because it infringes on day to day activities around me, claws into the politics of the day and constitutes part of the cultural fabric of the society i am in.

Do you want more?

wait you can add one more to it.
7. because i like to

Again this is not about politics. Focus on religion please.

If you cannot grasp the point of a simple analogy, what exactly am i doing with you?

Have you ever tried dissecting religion with a religious atheist? If you have done this, have you done so in an attempt to understand since its one atheist to another or you also did so as scepticism?

Oh yes i very much have and i believe that atheist goes by the name folklaze or something here on nairaland.

And yes too both of your guesses are part of my numerous reasons for engaging

You kept on repeating the same thing on every line and this is not an exception.

I am sure you didn't

The question should be, should religion be the paramount concern of an atheist since even you have been able to identify that God exists outside religion and that one can be religious without God and believe in God without being religious.

The famous replying a question with another question - the points keeps going low.

An atheist has every right to chose any matter he wants to hold paramount in his life since the label "atheist" is not the only that defines any person who is one, he may also be a democrat or maybe a vegetarian, or homophobic or ant-religious.

Anyone can chose a matter that they find worthy of being an optimum priority in their lives.

I can also reverse that question: Why should the paramount concern of an atheist be of any paramount concern to you?

I am sure you won't answer that as the first question also went unanswered but i will keep the faith

spacetacular:
You keep saying Religion is a matter of public concern and I wonder what public group it particularly concerns. You seem to think it's a general concern and you are the super hero flying in to the rescue.

Yes religion is a matter that concerns the public, it is more political and cultural than it is divine. Would you tell me not to talk about politics or even culture? No you wouldn't.

So it seems curios that you are right here trying to limit peoples liberty to engage in any topic of discussion as it concerns the public, religion is a public affair, so anyone can talk about it, you are yet to provide reasons why religion is not a matter of public concern.

If you are not discussing Religion in order to gain understanding then what other reason have you got to discuss it besides scepticism? This is the entire point!

People discuss a particular issue for many reasons, many discuss politics to weigh the options at hand, many do same just to air their opinion or just for the fun of it. So what exactly is your concern on why people chose to discuss a particular matter?

Even if Religion were true you do not wish to discuss in order to understand as you already said so why go around with the same monotonous scepticism as found in theodicy which is what I have come to observe in the atheists here.

As i have mentioned earlier, many religions are without God(s) and it is actually well known that many atheists are in fact religious. So again religion as a matter is of public concern, not limited to a certain class or caliber of people.

Just as politics everyone is allowed to hold an opinion on religion, if you are to place a cap on what people can discuss or should discuss you must give reasons on which you base your arguments.

If you now say you are not particularly being sceptical about religion as there is more to discuss in religion besides scepticism then tell me what that is because surely understanding isn't on that list.

There are two points that i am going to use close this up with:

1. everyone has their own reason for engaging in a particular topic, religion is not exclusively theistic, it can also be atheistic so on that virtue even an atheist can claim as much right to religion as you.

2. Religious skepticism is open for all, religious or not as long as you a member of the public your right to opinions of every matter is fundamental, so whether you are atheistic or not you have sole right just like everyone else to chose what you wish to discuss and have every right to hold an opinion on every matter you deem necessary.

Now i have a question for you:

Are we all free to discuss religion or not just like every other matter no matter what our reasons for indulging may be?

spacetacular:
Everyone is free to discuss religion but here is the issue. Is religion the ONLY understanding of God you know? Did you read anywhere that Religion keeps God in existence?

Here is the mistake: You have assumed that anyone discussing religion is doing so as a means to understand the concept of God but that is wrong, there is more to religion than just Gods and there are in fact religions without God.



So people are free to discuss religion or not ?

That's the question.

Why then do you have this fixation on Religion? Can you not find a clear divide between God and Religion?

God and religion is not the matter but rather " religion" as a matter of public concern.

So people have every right to hold opinions about religion what ever their belief or unbelief is, No?

KingEbukasBlog:
Why are atheists here discussing the bible , religious beliefs , religious doctrine when it has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God . The deists who acknowledge the existence of God reject religious beliefs and question religious authority .

Atheism is not the rejection of religion . There are religious atheists . So can an atheist explain the obsession with religious skepticism when it has nothing to do with the existence of God ?

Anybody can employ religious skepticism, so why can't the atheists also do same?

Or being atheists makes them not qualified to also employ religious skepticism or have opinions about matters of public concern like religion?

Atheist or not, people are free to talk or discuss religion so what exactly is the point here?

KingEbukasBlog:
You have been an atheist for more than 6 years now right ? What have you been disbelieving as an atheist ? Its utterly gratuitous for you to ask me to define God as an ATHEIST . Let me explain why it makes no sense to throw the question back at me

Example
I'm against totalitarian governments and we all know through out history atheists have always headed totalitarian governments and have been responsible for over 200 million deaths in 100 years . Now imagine you see me and ask me to explain why I'm against such a government and my response is that you should tell me what a totalitarian government is , wouldn't I look stupid ?

So as an atheist , what have you been disbelieving or rejecting all this while ? Do you reject the deification of an entity or do you deny the existence of an entity because its a god or its deified ?

I once asked you this question: What does it mean to deify?

If you deify your sandals what makes it seize to be a sandal and takes on the nature of Godhood.

I don't deify things, so it is up to you who do to teach me what it means to deify things then i can easily lay out to you what it means to be in my position as one who lacks belief in the deities.

Let us for once reason together, let us for once try and imagine what sort of God we always portray as that which we believe in. Coercion doesn't beget sincere adoration rather it brings about silence, and silence is neither to be confused with sincerity and devotion.

You all make the grandeur of the universe seem so small, makes the grand design of creation tiny, you psychologically imagine a geocentric universe where it is all about you, the news is, it is not.

I want you to allow your mind to wonder, i need you to think about the universe and our place in it. We are nothing more than cosmic blinks lost in the shores of forever dangling in a mot of dust floating in eternity.

we let ourselves imagine a God, we let ourselves tinker with the possibilities of beings far greater than we are, we let ourselves dream about entities that are everything we are not; We are vulnerable beings but God is ever secure, we are frail but God is the strongest, we know so little but God is all knowing, our power so small but God is all powerful, our place in the universe so minuscule but God is omnipresent.

It seems God is a projection of everything we are not, God is all our imperfections staring us right into the face, our fears and our hope needing to finding solace and comfort however we can muster, it seems at first glance that God is the projections of all our vulnerability.

God is all powerful, all knowing, all present, he literally caused everything that is and everything that will be almost from nothing. Let us try to put the depth of the universe into scale.

We live on a very tiny planet amidst a host of others dangling around a middle aged mediocre star lost in a remote corner of an astonishingly big but average galaxy, hundreds of thousands of a million probably is far less than the count of these universes hanging on a deep dusk of eternity we call universe.

God is powerful enough to create this, God is able to do this but such a magnificent God capable and able to create this grand cosmos you'd be dismayed to figure that God is also everything that mankind is.

God is petty, God has needs, God is vulnerable, emotionally insecure and volatile.

Here comes the all powerful, self sufficient creator of the universe dabbling into the affairs of a lost specie in a insignificant planet, this all powerful God loves some of them more than others, this humongous self sufficient God needs their love, it needs their praise, their belief, their adoration, God craves these things that he prepares to burn everyone of them who doesn't give him what he needs.

You have outrightly insulted and ridiculed your very concept of God, you have heaped upon us a paradox that still we cannot come to terms with.

If God is all powerful and all contained, why would he be bothered with my tiny belief unless he is not.

So forgive me if i fail to see the sense in an all powerful, sufficient God who is still petty and needy, pardon me if i cannot come to terms with the inclusion of such opposite virtues in one entity, i am sorry good sir but your guesses of what God can do contradicts your guesses of what God is making it almost certainly that God is only but a child of a tiny human mind.

I am sorry my good sir but your God is an insult to itself. simple too small for this cosmos

swiz123:
Genesis 1vs1:In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Vs2:The earth was formless and empty,and darkness covered the covered the deep "waters".
There was no biblical account of God creating water because according to the it literally,water already existed.God is the maker of the whole universe and Everything in it.
So please let the Bible Gurus help us explain the enigma of water.
Lalasticlala, mynd44,ishilove.help move this to front page for more audience.

''When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together''

The above was hewn from the very first verse of the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian Creation myth believed to own the original motif and theme found in the first creation story of Genesis chapter one.

Pay keen attention to the words i quoted above from the scripture of Enuma Elish, again the Water appears as part of a preexisting value before or during creation.

This doesn't mean that Water is uncreated, the water as seen in the text can be represented with another word, Void, darkness, abyss, chaos.

The Bible just like the Enma Elish is a creation from Chaos Myth out of many of such stories scattered around the world cultures that is, in such a story from chaos myth chaos was a preexisting value before creation.

In such stories, chaos was the original state of everything before the God(s) comes along and ushers in order (cosmos). The cosmos literally means order as regard the universe.

In such themes the universe originally disordered, without form (water), void, abyss, deep is pieced together into an ordered system by God or Gods but also there are forces that wants to take the cosmos back to the original state which has a remarkable resemblance to the second law of thermodynamics, everything is always going towards disorder.

GoodMuyis:
Bad Atheism

You sound like Trump.

Fake Media

dalaman:
johnydon22 I see you.

Baba your boy dey loyal