₦airaland Forum

sonofluc1fer:
He can keep his heaven. I don't wanna be a part of it anyways. Have fun with your plenty mansions and streets of gold. Una no get sense I swear.

sonofluc1fer:
Dont mind those atheists. They will continue to wail and complain, even in hell fire. God, in his loving mercies, will show them justice in the lake of fire, where they shall burn foreverly..

JackBizzle:
cc sapiosexuality
joshthefirst

lepasharon:
You graduated yet

JackBizzle:
Dear nairalanders, please take notice of this human being called Joshthefirst.

He is an example of why Nigeria will not get better. Rather than learn something new, he would rather close his mind and call something that is factual "nonsense"

Note that he didnt elaborate why it is "nonsense".

plaetton:
And I thought I was the only one who noticed.

Deepsight has gone full blown OLODO.

DeepSight:
Have you ever closely observed and contemplated a cadaver?

Do people hallucinate, and if they do, do some hallucinations involve pain?

I am not sure you have contemplated this issue carefully, or perhaps you do not understand what I am saying.

PastorAIO:
...



Now that you also agree with the other dude, please tell us.

In this matter that we are discussing..... Are you being Logical or are you being above logic?

part of logic is the awareness of what is called Mutual Exclusivity. You cannot make Sense and be Nonsensical at the same time, these things are mutually exclusive. Se you understand.

You claimed to be Logical in this matter that we are discussing from the very start, then suddenly when it suits you you claim that what you are saying is above logic. These are mutually exclusive. Please make it clear for us. Which one is it?

KingEbukasBlog:
How are you an atheist if you don't know who God is ? Are you scared sir

KingEbukasBlog:
But hold on , aint you an ATHEIST ? As an atheist , you reject the existence of God . Who is that whom you reject ?

PastorAIO:
Hhhhhhhaaaaaahhh!!! Why you people dey lie like this na? So blatant, so unflinching, so bold. On the same thread!!!

Where do you get this deceitful spirit from? It's so nasty. It's so sad.





Or perhaps you don't know that I can read too. Or perhaps you have another understanding of 'not a logical man'.

The guy, who, as you are now defending his words, I take it you're in agreement with, states categorically that he is not just referring to God but to the Christian, the Christian life and the Bible.

Why must you dey lie lie like dis? Na demons o, that is my only explanation that I can think up. Demonic infestation.

PastorAIO:
how is the context different? What is the context in which you think it is okay to eschew logic?

And also, are you ready to disavow the guy that said you are above logic? Please do so now, or I'll take it that you agree with him.

Kay17:
You have not still explained how the Universe came to being without the passage of time from when it was non existent to when it began to exist.

GeneralOjukwu:
I need video evidence of his resurrection.

There are African cultures who believe their forefathers descended from the Heavens. Muslims too believe in their Prophet and claim to have evidence. So do Buddhists.

Why not believe that but gullibly swallow what a white man told you?

GeneralOjukwu:
Nobody has ever died and returned with EVIDENCE.

What evidence do you have that Jesus existed and it's not fiction?

sonofluc1fer:
Missed you JoshTheFirst. Oya come chess.com, make I nak you small akpako.

Goshen360:
This guy need to examine himself in his Gospel before it's too late. Seriously. I just heard Joseph Prince of the New Creation Church, Singapore teach on TBN live with Satelite with Matthew Crouch. I am not preaching condemnation to sinners but Joseph Prince just said, "WHILE a smoker is smoking, he should just see himself and confess himself as the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus even while smoking. While someone is watching a Indecency.graphy, or fornicating, he/she should not see him/her self as sinners but rather while fornicating/watching Indecency.graphy, he/she should confess him/her self as the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus" Is this the Gospel? I mean seriously, is this the Gospel? Like someone said, many of this new age preachers just want to say something new and therein, preach and teach heresies of the last days.

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Peter 2:1 (Niv)

Notice, it says there WERE "false prophets among the people" of Old, there will be "false teachers among us". It was false prophets then but false teachers now. Why not false prophets then and false prophets now? but it says false teachers now. Because, many will not be able to withstand sound doctrines. Look at how they will operate and people don't notice that, "they will SECRETLY INTRODUCE DESTRUCTIVE HERESIES". Meaning, they will teach this "damnable or destructive heresies" in a subtly way that will seems attractive and sweet to the ears. We MUST watch out for this and the only way is to be ground and rooted in the word of God. That is how we know when someone is "secretly introducing damnable or destructive heresies".

PastorAIO:
I forgot to mention:

So that is why I was going on about points containing the universe. Because you said something about God containing the universe, so I asked if God was a point.

In other words, while you may be trying to use it to show the vastness and magnitude of how you see God, it could also reduce God to the most infinitesimally small thing.

PastorAIO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-eJW0gEm5w



Imagine a ball. There is a space inside the ball. and there is a vast amount of space outside the ball.

imagine there is a pebble inside the ball. There is absolutely no way that you can take the pebble from the space inside the ball to the space outside the ball without breaching the ball by tearing it. No matter how you twist and reshape the ball the pebble will always remain on the 'inside' of the ball.

(please notice the inverted commas of 'inside').

There are 2 spaces we are interested in. One space we call 'inside' the ball. The other space we call 'outside' the ball.

We can call the ball a sealed container. We cannot remove the pebble from 'inside' the ball without tearing the ball.

Topologically let us define a sealed container as something that it's contents cannot pass through from one space, 'inside', to the other, 'outside'.

But are our choices of 'inside' and 'outside' not arbitrary.

Can we not say that the Ball contains the whole universe, except for the little sphere of air we once called it's 'inside'.

So the ball almost contains the whole universe. All the universe except a small round sphere of air. (what about the pebble? Oh okay, let's not forget the pebble then). Nothing can pass from the wider universe through the skin of the ball without tearing the ball. So the ball contains the wider universe with the exception of some spherical air and a pebble.


But what if the ball was smaller. Not a football but a tennis ball. Well in that case it would contain more universe and the other space would contain less spherical air.



And smaller? More universe.



What if it was so small that there was no longer any 'inside' air or pebble, so small there was nothing 'inside', in other words what if we reduced the container to a point.


Well then that point would contain the entire universe!!

I hope I explained it well to you.

PastorAIO:
Since I've decided to abandon the God Does Not 'EXIST' thread I can continue to address the any relevant points here, Joshthefirst.


This was your last post addressed to me:



You claim to have been logical, and accused me of giving you 'no sold reply'.

This is what the record says:


This is a supporter of yours on the thread. He claims that what you wrote in your OP is above logical.

These are not your word, I accept, but the guy was supporting you on the thread. Now what I want to know is whether you are in agreement with him that your OP was 'way above' Logic, or whether you are ready to disavow the guy right now.



So above you freed yourself from any rigors placed on you by grammar and the logical structures of language. Although you happily employ a great deal of nouns in your attempts to 'pass across a point of God's supreme nature'. This was what prompted me to ask you if you would consider yourself foolish in doing so.

But surely you can see that you've given yourself free license to be as illogical as you like.

JackBizzle:
Infinity does not have to be a real number to be a number. The square root of -1 is not a real number.

JackBizzle:
Therefore, infinity is a number.

It is
1) An arithmetic symbol representing a value (an infinite value)

JackBizzle:
Every number is defined what is the decimal value of 22/7? what number do you get when you divide 1 by 0?

You say that every number is defined and then you go on to contradict yourself by mentioning "irrational numbers" whose values can't be expressed in decimals.

Infinity is a number. The infinity symbol ∞ (sometimes called the lemniscate) is a mathematical symbol representing the concept of infinity.

If it is defined, why cant it be expressed in decimals?

Here is another example of an undefined number

Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression 0/0 also has no defined value;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_symbol

Why are you just funny?

Is simple philosophy beyond your reasoning? Is it not longer to travel up and down as compared to travelling only up?

If both up and down are infinite journeys, it means that there are two infinite journeys. Are two infinite journeys not longer than one?

Common sense is not common

Greater christian and atheist philosophers have struggled with the omnipotence paradox. A random third world doctor (you) is only deceiving himself if he thinks he can just call it "nonsense"

johnydon22:
infinity can be greater than infinity contrary to Joshthefirst thoughts. there is an infinite number of values in between 0 and 1 and 1 to 2 but still one is still greater than 0 and 2 greater than 1 even though in the real numerical sense all are infinite - so yes infinity can always increase.

so the omni paradox holds, because it literally contradicts itself

JackBizzle:
You are not reasoning logically. You say numbers are not boundless and yet, you contradict yourself by saying that there is always an increase. There is no limit to numbers.

I would argue that infinity itself is a number. There is a symbol for it

To give you a practical example of inifinity being a number, just take the simple division of 22/7 or the symbol called "pi" π.

That "Pi" number is infinite because, equivalently, its decimal representation never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern.

Limitless can increase. You can multiply 2 infinites. For example, let us assume that the universe is infinite in all directions. If I try to travel to the top of the universe, I would not get there because it would take me an infinite time to get to the top of the universe which is infinite. If I then plan a second journey to the bottom of the universe, that would add an infinity to another infinity- it would take longer to go to the top and then backwards to the bottom.

The problem with this your infinite God is that infinity does not exist in the real world. It is a contradiction. Something can be infinitely big but can still be bigger. Can God make a God more powerful than himself? The apparent contradiction is soo clear. What if God gives birth to God 2.0? A self-refuting contradiction.

JackBizzle:
So, you just act like my comment doesn't exist?

okay.

JackBizzle:
A boundless entity is not duplicated? Who made that rule?

Simple logic even defeats that statement- numbers are boundless in to ways- they can be infinitely increased or decreased- you can keep adding up or subtracting down. To suggest that there can be only one boundless entity is myopic in thought.

JackBizzle:
Infinity, in theory, can be multiplied.

JackBizzle:
Ironically, I just finished watching Jet li's "The One" - a movie where there could only be one infinitely powerful chi master in the universe.